TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC

Be a Postmodern Catholic today!!

2009-02-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
-By His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, Father of Postmodern Catholicism

I, (state your name), firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Sancte Joannes Bosco, Ora pro nobis

2009-01-30T19:59:00.000-08:00

ST. JOHN BOSCO
The Father and Teacher of the Youth

Don Bosco - a traditional Catholic priest who taught the youth the value of the salvation of their souls, and upheld even unto his death the traditional Catholic faith. His priestly simplicity, as manifested by his biretta, teaches us even to this day his firmness in the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

PRAYER TO ST. JOHN BOSCO

O Saint John Bosco, father and teacher of youth, who labored so much for the salvation of souls. Be our guide in seeking the good of our souls, and the salvation of our neighbor. Help us to conquer our passions and to practice daily our Faith. Teach us to love Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, Mary Help of Christians, and our Holy Father the Pope. And obstian for us the grace, of dying as friends of God, so that we may all be gathered, together with you in heaven. Amen.

PRAYER FOR INTERCESSION: For the Restoration of the Traditional Catholic Faith

St. John Bosco pray for the persecuted Church of today. May your intercession bring about the restoration of the traditional Catholic faith back into the modern Church. May priests follow your heroic example and offer the Mass that you've learned from your forefathers in the faith. That through your intercession, O defender of the little ones and celebrant of the Traditional Latin Mass, inspire your brother priests to follow the directive of Summorum Pontificum, and finally preach the traditional Catholic Faith alone, which came to us from the Holy Apostles. May your loyalty to the Holy Father the Pope, touch the hearts of those who have lost and has their faith shattered by the present crisis; may they hold firm to the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ to St. Peter. Amen

Ora pro nobis Sancte Ioannes Bosco,
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.

Oremus;

Deus, qui sanctum Joannem Confessorem tuum adolescentium patrem et magistrum excitasti, ac per eum, auxiliatrice Virgine Maria, novas in Ecclesia tua familias florescere voluisti: concede, quaesumus, ut eodem caritatis igne succensi, animas quaerere, tibique soli servire valeamus. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium Tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritu Sancti Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen (From the Collect of the Tridentine Mass January 31)

Why do priests ought to "turn their back to the people" during Mass?

2008-12-15T17:34:00.001-08:00

CONVERSI AD DOMINUM “LET US TURN TO THE LORD” -Laurentius Valentia

A short collection of Q&As as to why Catholic Mass should be celebrated with the priest “facing the East (ad orientem).”

“The priest doesn’t turn his back to the faithful; rather like the faithful he turns himself and faces the triune God.”

Question 1: Doesn’t the priest offering Holy Mass “ad orientem” that is facing the crucifix/tabernacle which is turning his back to the people – an offensive gesture to the people attending Mass?

Reply: No, firstly it would be a great misunderstanding, and certainly a wrong disposition to imbibe an attitude that we go to Mass to be noticed or attended by the priest, or even entertained, respected, or emotionally be enlivened. No, on the contrary, we go to Mass simply because OF GOD, and He should be the center of everyone’s attention. We ARE not the focal point at Holy Mass. It is God! His sympathies, order and commandments, and will, that ought to take precedence. Not ours. Secondly, we go to Holy Mass on four points, and on four points only; namely, to worship God, to appease His just wrath and ask for forgiveness, to thank Him, and to ask Him for His Graces (A.C.T.S.). All other human factors (our sentiments, and preferences, attention span, mood swings, point of boredom, etc.) become secondary, and are only relative to the four points. Since if these four points are not accomplished then our going to Mass is useless.

Question 2: But isn’t more proper to offer Mass with the priest facing the people and not turning his back to them?

Reply: Again, we go to Holy Mass because we would want to worship God our Creator and Savior. God is the center of the Sacred Liturgy not the people attending. The priest facing the East (ad orientem) is a form of worship that traces back to the early days of the Christian faith. It was done in the Christian age, and apostolic times of the said era. Since the sun rises in the east, the early Christians associated this to the Risen Christ, rising from the dead and ascending to heaven offering Himself eternally to the Father, and to the Second Coming where Christ as King will come to judge the living and the dead. A short research on the Church Fathers e.g. St. Augustine, etc. would prove this and the testimony of the early Church. Thus, the entire congregation facing the liturgical east represents Our Lord’s death (after all Jerusalem is located in “the East”), resurrection, ascension, and His glorious return.

The priest in persona Christi “in the person of Christ” facing the crucifix viz. facing east offering to God the Father in heaven, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on our behalf; while the faithful, facing the same direction, responds and unites their prayers, contrition, petitions, and thanksgiving with the priest (who IS the one doing the offering to God and not the people). It is only after the Second Vatican Council that the innovation of the priest facing the people began (which ironically, no document of Vatican II sanctioned such a change). The role of the Catholic priesthood is emulated in Holy Mass celebrated ad orientem, as the leader of the people of God, and as an alter Christus. The priest is not an emcee, or an actor that should please the people to avoid them from getting bored or sleepy during Holy Mass.

Question 3: Didn’t Jesus Himself offered the Last Supper facing His Apostles?

Reply: Chapter Three of The Spirit of the Liturgy by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, former Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and now Pope Benedict XVI refutes this claim:

“…The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table.” – Emphasis mine.

Question 4: But the Liturgy offered “facing east” diminishes the role of the priest, rather than in a Liturgy where the celebrant faces the people. The priest being “in persona Christi” reflects this more if he says Mass facing the people, for he is the center of the people’s attention?

Reply: On the contrary, the priest becoming in the person of Christ is more reflected if he faces east. For not only does he repeat the manner in which God was worship in the Old Testament, rather he emulates Christ who is now in heaven facing the Father praying on our behalf. Again, the former Cardinal and now Pope refutes this argument, and those who hold that the crucifix should not be at the center of the altar and must be placed at the side, to have an unobstructed view of the priest, when Mass is celebrated facing the people.

He argues:

“Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the suffering Lord who for us let his side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of the Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the one Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).” -Chapter III The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, emphasis mine

What the former head of CDF (and now Pope) was pointing out is that it is from the Cross where the priest derives his power to confect the sacraments, and offer to God, and to intercede for the people. Then why should the Cross be put aside, and the priest face the people - and not to the one whom his offering is directed? In the full-blown Christian context, the priest should decrease so that the Lord must increase cf. John 3:30. After all the whole purpose of representation is to exalt the one represented or heralded, and even St. John the Baptist knew this very well.

Question 5: But didn’t the Second Vatican Council authorize the use of priest facing the people during Mass?

Reply: Ironically no, during the entire Council the Mass used and offered was the 1962 Tridentine/Traditional Latin Mass revised by Pope Bl. John XXIII – where the priest faces the “liturgical east” and was offered in Latin the official language of the Western Catholic Church. The Council’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium nowhere mentions that priests should face the people instead of the East. It maybe true though that succeeding documents after the Council (which are not of the Council) suggested and permitted priests to face the people during Mass, but that IS all there is – a suggestion, and a mere permission. Ad orientem (facing the east) was (and still IS) the rule of the entire Catholic Church (Eastern or Western). It was the liturgical orientation that was presupposed by the Council Vatican II. Hence even to this day, ad orientem by principle is the norm, while facing the people is an “exception”.

Question 6: If that was true then we could at least see the Pope offer Mass facing the East (ad orientem)?

Reply: And he did. On January 13, 2008, in the Sistine Chapel, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI “turned his back to the people” and join them in facing the East, facing the Christ. Furthermore as Cardinal, the Pope in many occasions offered Mass facing east and in Latin (in the near future we’ll handle, explain, and defend as to why Roman Catholics ought to worship in a language they “don’t” understand). The Holy Father even ordained priests in the Traditional (Tridentine) form while as a Cardinal. As Pope Benedict XVI, he authorized the right of every Roman Catholic priest to use the Traditional Latin Mass of 1962 and clarified that "it was never abrogated" nor was it replaced by the New Mass ref. Papal document Summorum Pontificum. Also, even Pope John Paul II did offer Mass “ad orientem” on several occasions.

Question 7: The Mass is a Holy Meal, it is more proper for the priest to face the people rather than turning his back to them.

Reply: First of all the Mass IS NOT a "meal"! It is first and foremost a SACRIFICE. To view the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a “holy meal”, is based on a wrong and dangerous theology that is heretical and definitely not (or even anti) Catholic. Yes there is bread and wine (which is no longer bread and wine once consecrated by the priest), and its eventual consumption (i.e. communion) but it is not a meal. Rather a re-enactment of the “Once-And-For-All” Sacrifice of Calvary. The appearance of "meal" only comes after the sacrifice has been done. We’ll have more of this in the future.

For now, let us conclude with this excerpt:

We can no longer deny that exaggerations and aberrations have crept in which are both annoying and unbecoming. Must every Mass, for instance, be celebrated facing the people? Is it so absolutely important to be able to look the priest in the face, or might it not be often very salutary to reflect that he also is a Christian and that he has every reason to turn to God with all his fellow-Christians of the congregation and to say together with them 'Our Father'? - Joseph Ratzinger, 'Catholicism after the Council', 1967

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,

Thoughts on the New Mass

2008-10-07T18:40:00.000-07:00

-By Laurentius Valentia

Some thoughts on the New Mass,

I guess one of the main problems is, to determine what is the Novus Ordo? Again, Zenit's article about an issue on celebrating and after confecting the Eucharist of whether it is necessary to raise the Holy Eucharist in both hands, or just one hand, is an interesting point.

No orthodox Catholic would deny the validity and the (substantial) sanctifying capability of the New Mass, but like its preface - Vatican II, the problem is that we don't know exactly how to celebrate the Novus Ordo properly, as specifically and concretely prescribed (unlike the traditional Mass.) Yes it is quite true and agreeable that the authors of the GIRM intended the traditional way of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice be maintained in the New Mass. The problem with that argument I think is that such position was not officially and directly legislated viz. the GIRM doesn't explicitly nor implicitly say, and one has to speculate and assume that position as standard. Hence, those who insert and interpret to the contrary are technically "off the hook." With the present rule in force, one can celebrate the Novus Ordo as almost identical with the Tridentine Mass. One can also however celebrate the New Mass in a most liberal way, perhaps much worse than a Protestant service; or it can possibly lead to further abuse. The Novus Ordo should be reformed and must be celebrated in the manner traditional Latin liturgy is celebrated. The “Benedictine” Masses are a good start (and a good example.) Nevertheless, a new and definite promulgation should be done, and the present GIRM isn't sufficient should be amended.

THE MYSTERIUM FIDEI

This is what I believe to be one of the flaw of the present Novus Ordo. I agree that it can be interpreted and celebrated in a solemn and traditional way. But due to its "assumptions" it has rendered itself vague, hence opening the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated in an accidentally "defective" manner. Hence, the present Novus Ordo has created a wrong (or properly, "misleading") emphasis on Catholic doctrine, like for example the theological location of transubstantiation - on where the "matter and form" of the substantial change takes place, because some thought (and taught) that since the rubrics of the minor elevation and its prayers (some priests give more emphasis on this by singing the doxology) it is then precisely the time when transubstantiation takes place, and not on the consecration where the actual change is precisely indicated by Christ's own words.

Notice the doctrinal implications of the Mysterium Fidei (the Mystery of the Faith) of the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo.

The Extraordinary form simply goes like this: "For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of the Faith; WHICH shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As often as you do these things, you shall do them in remembrance of Me."

On the other hand, the Ordinary form has four variations:

Let us proclaim THE Mystery of Faith:

1) Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Savior of the world.

2) Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

3) Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.

4) When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.

Comparing the two forms and on what is the "Mysterium Fidei," the Roman Canon of the Extraordinary form says "For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of the Faith; which shall be shed for you..."

While the Roman Canon of the Ordinary form says "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith" which is "by your cross and resurrection you have set us free" or "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" or "Lord Jesus come in glory." Catholics of course won’t deny that all of the above statements are all legitimate truths of Mysteries of the Christian Faith. However, one would notice the theological shift, from the ‘sacrificial’ nature of the Mystery, to the ‘eschatological’ aspect.

SHIFTING ITS THEOLOGICAL GEAR

The said shift to the eschatological area, from the sacrificial, has also affected some people’s understanding on the doctrinal focus of the Mass. From one of Divine Propitiation, to a mere parousia, or adventus “coming” where Christ becomes physically present in the Mass so as to simply anticipate His Second Coming and to be received in Holy Communion. On the contrary, traditional Roman Catholic understanding of Holy Mass IS that it is first and foremost a sacrifice – an unbloody participation of Calvary to appease the just wrath of God towards sinful man, sine qua non no communion is possible. Unlike the eschatological perspective, the sacrificial focus points out that Christ becoming physically present at Holy Mass IS to primarily appease the wrath of the Father and nothing else. Communion, forgiveness of sins follows after and is only secondary, since without first appeasing the wrath of God, then forgiveness or communion won’t be possible.

Again, as I've previously mentioned, one of the dangers of this shift in the Mysterium Fidei of the New Liturgy is that it has confused some as to where the actual transubstantiation takes place, thinking that it occurs at the doxology, somewhere before or after the Great Amen. Whereas, the Council of Trent made it clear that the change of substance takes place when the words of institution are spoken and intended. Again, this stemmed from the fact of the alteration of emphasis from sacrificial to eschatological.

INFALLIBLE?

There is no doctrinal error here, on the other hand, for both aspects (i.e. the sacrifice and the eschaton) are part of the grand mystery of our Christian faith. Ultra-traditionalists would be tempted to point out that this simply discredits the New Mass as dangerous and sinful because of the said shift, because it leads to confusion. We’ve already said that there is no doctrinal error present in the Novus Ordo per se, only a change of emphasis that may lead fallible men into doctrinal error, and misunderstanding – and these are two different things. Nor do we say that the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit because of its accidental diminishments.

Furthermore, I recant my previous position on the Novus Ordo when I say that it is accidentally “defective.” I would rather say it is ontologically perfect i.e. substantially and accidentally, but compared with the Traditional Latin Mass, the New Mass is accidentally diminished – administratively and liturgically vague. It is true that it has its “defects,” but this isn’t to be construed in the negative, rather in comparing the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass side by side with Calvary itself would certainly dwarf the Novus Ordo’s expression of the same sacrifice. It is my opinion that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite doesn’t delivery enough doctrinal sustenance, and discipline needed for the Catholic’s nourishment and spiritual growth, I’ve already mentioned this in some of my articles. Yes, it contains the very same Christ that the Old Mass or the Extraordinary Form contains, but the insufficiency of the New Mass stems from the fact that it draws too little from the infinite grace provided by the same Eucharist by means of ambiguous directives, lazed rubrics, theological confusion, and the lack of administrative teeth.

In Conclusion

Like Sacred Scripture, the precept (i.e. the consecration formula) of the Novus Ordo is infallible, but liberal and modernist priests are not. They thought that just because the present precepts of the Catholic Church doesn't prescribes them to act otherwise, doesn't mean they can interpret and attach their folly into the Sacred Liturgy. Yet, again perhaps we can blame it once again to the vague composition of the official books of the Novus Ordo. Again, this is where the Benedictine intervention can be most prudent. As a traditional Catholic, I believe that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is THE standard for the proper celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass, but it has to be officially stated and specified so. It has to be concrete and specific. Should I have been the Pope (and thank God I'm not) I would have required all Roman Catholic priests to know by heart how to celebrate the Extraordinary form before celebrating the Novus Ordo.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo.

Is the Mass a meal or a sacrifice?

2008-09-20T17:35:00.000-07:00

Hello,

Having posted no article for the past months, nor could I do some follow-ups, I'd like to share my colleague Gerald's reflection about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can visit his own site here. Thank you and God bless.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,

IS THE MASS A MEAL OR A SACRIFICE?
-By Gerald Cenir

Being brought up in a Catholic family and having studied in a Catholic Institution, I was always taught that the Mass is special and sacred... it is a sacred meal and a sacrifice. But it was only when I attended my first TLM almost 2 years ago that the reality of the nature of the Mass was made clear. Even the most simplest of its forms, the Low Mass, clearly illustrates its sacredness, its mystery and its sacrificial nature. Is it the orientation, silence, the gestures, or the language, or even the priestly vestments? It is no question that these elements I mentioned contributes to the sacredness and sense of mystery to the Mass and perhaps the de-emphasis on the orientation, silence, gestures and language led to the de-emphasis on the sacredness, mystery, solemnity that eventually led to the de-emphasis on its sacrificial nature. What is left is the emphasis, or should I say over emphasis of the meal aspect, over emphasis that "transforms" it into merely a "communal" meal.

A theology of the Mass that is totally centered on "communal" meal aspect makes me ask myself: are we witnessing or partaking a mere breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack with some music and prayers? Are we just eating a mere bread and drinking a mere wine? Or are we witnessing a miracle, the greatest miracle that happens daily...the transformation of bread made by human hands, and wine made of fruit of the vine, into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Are we meeting some dignitary that we should show some sign of respect, or are we meeting the King of kings and Lord of lords face to face that we should show the greatest signs of reverence that we have? Is it a mere bread, or is it our God and King? What should our actions, our demeanor, our disposition be like in front of our God, our Lord and King who offers His Body and Blood for the sanctification of our souls?

The realization of the meal aspect, will never go away, unless we remove the bread and wine so that we can never communicate. The mere fact that bread and wine is present at Mass to be eaten is a sign and indication that it is a meal but the realization of the sacredness of the meal and the sacredness of sacrificial aspect can easily be hidden or taken away by means of the abuses and banality that had crept into the Mass, by making the priest face the people the entire Mass, by taking away and limiting the silence and gestures, sacred art and architecture, and even vestments that reminds us of the Real Presence of our Lord all in the name of simplification. The realization of the sacredness and sacrificial nature of the Mass, of our Lord's real presence, should in fact move us to show greater signs of respect, that is reverence and adoration towards the Lord by our disposition, our demeanor, gestures, music, sacred art and architecture, vestments, and prayers.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary continue to be our model and guide as she witnessed and united herself in the sacrifice of her beloved Son for the salvation of our souls.

On the Tridentine Mass - Fr. Grato Germanetto CRS

2008-07-19T22:44:00.000-07:00

Hello,

Allow me share with you a priest's reflection of the Tridentine Mass. It was written by Fr. Grato Germanetto, a Somascan priest, who graciously granted those of the Diocese of Parañaque their request for the Tridentine Mass. We are indebted to Fr. Grato and the entire Somascan community for accomodating us and by being obedient to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI's directive.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo.

(An article taken from "The Link" St. Jerome Emiliani Newsletter,
July 2008)

In nomine Patris, + et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
Amen.

Priest: Introibo ad altare Dei.
“I will go in unto the altar of God.”

Response: Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
“To God who gives joy to my youth.”

These past two Sundays (June 29 and July 6), these words in Latin resounded in our church at 9:30 a.m., accompanied by the beautiful and solemn Gregorian chant. They are the beginning of the Holy Mass celebrated in the Traditional Latin Rite as mandated in the 1962 Missale Romanum reformed by Pope John XXIII.

The Traditional Latin Mass was never abolished nor forbidden – just put aside to give way to the New Ordo of the Mass celebrated in the Vernacular Languages and accompanied by contemporary music.

Reactions to this New Ordo have been varied in many parts of the world. Some of them with painful consequences, like the schism of the Pius X group. But it must be said very clearly that the real reason for their separation from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church has never been the new Liturgy in itself but their rejection of the whole of the Vatican II Council.

Now, exactly one year ago, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, promulgated the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” which exhorts Bishops and Priests to heed the requests of the faithful who long for the Traditional Latin Mass.

That is why I accepted the invitation of a group of faithful from different parishes of the Diocese of Parañaque and practiced the old rite to become ready for it, while they provided me and the church with the necessary books and other paraphernalia: vestments for the celebrant and the altar servers, beautiful candelabra for the altar, processional cross and torches, censer and bucket of holy water.

Finally on Sunday, June 29, 2008, Solemnity of the Saints Peter and Paul, we did it.

It was a beautiful and solemn celebration, according to the many feedbacks we received after the mass. The same happened last Sunday and, I hope, will happen every Sunday.

I felt so much united with the Church of today and of centuries past. The use of the language and the chant which have been used for centuries all over the world was simply thrilling. Those who did not understand Latin felt even more the solemnity and the mystery of the celebration. Thousands and thousands of saints and plain people have repeated these same words and felt so much united with God.

You are invited to participate on Sundays at 9:30 a.m. and experience the marvelous feeling of praying with the rite our parents (for us already in age) and grandparents used during their lifetime. A useful booklet is provided to help you follow the celebration… God bless you all and protect you from all danger of the body and soul.

Rev. Fr. Grato Germanetto. CRS
Parish Priest, St. Jerome Emiliani Church

A Letter to my Charismatic Elders

2008-04-28T21:03:00.000-07:00

Hello,

It's been almost three months since I updated this blog, nevertheless I want to share with you an (edited) e-mail exchange with my elders in my Charismatic community, on the issue of Catholics attending 'worship concerts' or services given by heretics and schismatics. The exchange is slightly edited so as not to divulge some "identities" and personal concerns; rather the purpose of this post is to share to you my take on this subject:

Dear Elders,
First of all I would like to apologize to you all, if it seems I glanced at the issue and totally forgot about it. It is only today that I tidy-up my e-mail and it so happened that I notice an update of the topic. Once more, I ask your forgiveness if I appear to be troublesome and annoying, much of it I hate yet I’m once more bound by conscience to bring this to your venerable attention. As leaders of a community that claims to be ‘Catholic’, our brothers and sisters trust you the salvation of their souls and what heavy burden this is, yet immense with blessing, honor, and privilege on your part and responsibility.

I know that all of you are well respected people, professionals, geniuses, experts in your respective calling in your technical fields, to this I respectfully recognize, and humbly concede – I have much to learn from you. But pardon me when I used the term ‘ignorant’ which has a connotative baggage. Anyway, what I meant is that all of us are ignorant in some aspects and specialization (after all not all of us are omniscient, except God). Once more I convey to you my dearest friends in Christ, to forgive me should one perceive me as being offensive. But I pray to our Lord that this criticism of mine may be taken as a brotherly objective advice, and not of arrogance on my part.

Let me first clarify my outlook briefly. It is known to you by now, as perhaps indicated that I’m a traditional Catholic, yet allow me to elucidate that I am NOT against the Second Vatican Council per se, rather the fallacious liberal interpretations of the Council. It is also true that though I’m a ‘traditionalist’, I am a follower of this [Charismatic] community, which can be attested by my [community] heads, and once more I just want to clarify that I enjoy being part of the community for almost three years now, and being accepted as who I am...

Furthermore, I uphold the many teachings that our community espoused especially about morality, sex, decency, urgency, prayer life, “fraternity”, guidance, and patriotism etc. Nonetheless, after being a member for three years, I slowly recognize the liturgical and theological problems that overlooks the community, of which I have no intention of bringing up in this e-mail, yet I thought to be worthy of criticism in due time.

Moving on to the issue let me add/attach some more points and evaluation being discussed by the e-mails forwarded. Please bear in mind that it was not my intention to drag some of you into theological discussions yet it should be done, in order to explain things with precision:

Elder: On hindsight now, it was the Holy Spirit, working on the all of us, considering the interesting points raised in the email [*viz. my initial e-mail pointing out the errors of ecumenical gatherings - tridentine Catholic] below. After all, the good Bishop presented a modern-day view of our Catholic faith, which of course, given its Vatican II leanings, may find criticism from traditional Catholic members who react to the tenets of the Second Vatican Council.
Tridentine Catholic: We should clarify first what do we mean by “tenets”? By tenets do we mean Vatican II defined de fide doctrines, or dogmas like that of Nicea up to Vatican I? If that is the case then such an interpellation contradicts Pope Paul VI evaluation of Vatican II that it has no “extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility.” One only needs to Google this for verification to see that the previous pope and the Council itself never defined any dogmas which are binding on the faithful. Also, what are these “tenets” that the liberal supporters of the Council insist on? The fact is there are NO “tenets” promoted by Vatican II, aside from those tenets or dogmas long defined by the Church, just to give an example Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Salvation in the Catholic Church alone, Sacraments, etc. Pope Benedict XVI continually teaches us that one should read the documents of Vatican II in the light of the Church’s 2,000 year-old Tradition. Vatican II doesn’t give us an empty check.
Elder: Today, I found myself asking, "Has Lolek, Pope John Paul II, led a blasphemous life, considering that there were events in history that he consorted with non-Catholics?”
Tridentine Catholic: Yes, I too asked that question, but a fellow traditionalist told me that its best we leave it up to God the merciful and just Judge there is. I believe all of us would agree with the suggestion.
Elder: For example, history brings us to the following:
* November 17, 1980: During a visit to Germany, John Paul II went to a Lutheran church and declared: "I come to you as to the spiritual heritage of Martin Luther." He expressed admiration for Luther's "profound religious spirit."
* May 25, 1982: In England, John Paul II took part in a religious service in Canterbury Cathedral, side by side with the Anglican archbishop.
Tridentine Catholic: Clearly the Pope was not a very good example in this case. I can even go further that the former Pope was even “prayed” upon by animist, witchdoctors, Buddhists, and he even kissed the Koran etc. Surely, even St. Peter was reprimanded by St. Paul. Also, these instances can’t be used as authoritative in supporting the prevailing liberal-ecumenism which is quite predominant in the Church today. The Pope was not speaking either in the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium that would suppose to bind Catholics to follow and obey. Vatican I is clear in this matter – that the Holy Father, by hierarchal subordination, and by ex cathedra, we are only then bound to obey (See Session IV chapter 3 no. 2; and chapter 4 no. 9). Neither one was used by the Pope, in his capacity as teacher of the faithful in the aforementioned, so does St. Peter’s bad example in Galatians be considered binding on the early Christians.
Per Canon law 212 no. 3 that Christian faithful has “the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful” but of course with due reverence and humility, to disagree or even correct the Pope in some instances, but without prejudice to his supreme authority. St. Catherine of Siena imploring Pope Gregory XI is one example. Hence, this is one ground that traditional Catholics voiced out their disagreement with the Popes after Vatican II.
Elder: January 25, 1983: John Paul II promulgated the New Code of Canon Law in which noticeably omitted is the sanction of excommunication against Freemasons, and in which permission is given in certain cases to allow "Holy Communion" to be administered to schismatics and heretics without their return to the Catholic Church.
Tridentine Catholic: Yes this is true. But to be fair with John Paul II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law neither say that the omission of the sanction, means abrogation of that sanction. On the contrary, the sanction included in the 1917 Code of Canon law (the old one), and the 300 year condemnation of Freemasonry by the Catholic Church, was ratified by Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1983 when it provided: "Therefore, the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin (e.g. schism) and may not receive Holy Communion (i.e. the result of excommunication)." This document was also ratified by the then Pope John Paul II.
On the issue of receiving Holy Communion by heretics and schismatics, the Church has the right to deem whether one can receive Communion, provided that there is a grave necessity per Canon 844.4, which according to the Catechism in par 1401 this is in danger of death; and that those who would receive these must have Catholic faith on these sacraments, and having the required dispositions. It is like saying that a person wants to become a Catholic before he or she dies. At any rate, it is a mere exception to the rule, and NOT the rule.
Elder: December 11, 1983: John Paul II, accompanied by several cardinals, preached from the pulpit of a Lutheran church in Rome, took part there in a heretical service, and recited a prayer composed by Luther. Earlier, he had stated his opinion that Luther's case should be re-opened so that it could be "considered in a more objective light."
Tridentine Catholic: Another vague and more conciliar language used by the former Pope, which has no theological weight for us, Catholics, since there were no binding conclusions drawn, or imposed. It is statements like these that liberals and enemies of the Church try to deconstruct, to attack the traditional teaching of the Catholic Magisterium and her decision. It is their excuse to pursue their pathetic dialogue and compromise with heretics, but has no legitimate magisterial backbone.
Elder: October 27, 1986: John Paul II convened the ecumenical "prayer meeting" at Assisi in which 150 religions of the world were invited by him to pray for world peace.
Tridentine Catholic: Again another bad example for the former pope that merits criticism from the Christian faithful, under Canon 212 no. 3. of the Code of Canon law.
Elder: In the Vatican II Declaration Nostra Aetate, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islamism, and Judaism are given explicit recognition, despite the fact that the Hindus and Buddhists worship false gods, that the Moslems deny the divinity of Christ, and that the Jews reject Jesus Christ as the Messias. In fact, this Conciliar Declaration goes so far as to state: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is good and holy in these religions."
Tridentine Catholic: True again, but it does NOT say that these false religions per se are good nor their doctrines true. Rather the Church recognizes the truths which she herself professes, and is also professed by these religions. Notice also that it does not say that these religions ARE good. No, as far as Nostra Aetate is concerned, it only says that the Church rejects nothing which is good and holy IN these religions, not that these religions are the ones good. But the fact of the matter is Vatican II clearly stated that there is only one true religion founded by Christ, and that IS the Catholic Church cf. Lumen Gentium 14. Further, the Catholic Church cannot reject truths taught by other religions like for example that there is only one God (Judaism); or the responsibility of man to God (Islam), the moral law (Confucianism), prayer (Hinduism), alms-giving (Buddhism), social service (Communism), etc. She cannot reject these things because the Church believes these very same things! And, she cannot contradict herself in the area of faith and morals, since it is God Himself who revealed it to the Church; and this God cannot contradict Himself.
Elder: Today, [our] elders are being asked: Have they approved the proposal for a so-called "worship-concert" with the heretical [Pentecostal] group? [*I brought this matter to my elders’ attention and criticize those who would support it. Because apparently our ‘Catholic’ Charismatic community supports prayer and worship with Pentecostals but many of the elders reassured me that that is not the case - Tridentine Catholic]
Tridentine Catholic: However, it is my opinion that those in our community should at least be warned. It is one thing to listen and sing their songs, which can be perfectly, understood in light of Catholic doctrine e.g. Shout to the Lord etc. BUT it is a different story to join them in their heretical and rebellious worship. One should understand that though they are our separated brothers, their worship is counter-worship to the true worship of the Church of Christ! By going and worshipping with them, we are saying that their opposing liturgy IS acceptable to God, inspite of their disobedience to recognize the true faith, and the true religion. I hope you guys know where I’m coming from.
Elder: To quote him, "this year, we are observing the fortieth anniversary of the completion of the Second Vatican Council (1965 - 2005). Three of its most important documents that situate the Church in the modern world were completed during the last session of the Council. These were:
1) Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)
2) Nostra Aettate (Declaration of the Church to Non-Christian Religions);
3) Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom).
Tridentine Catholic: Yes, and nowhere in these three documents mentioned that could justify the erroneous acts perpetrated by former Pope John Paul II, or give Charismatics the excuse to worship with heretics and schismatics. It is true that the pages of Vatican II maybe understood in a modernistic-liberal manner, however, the vague pages of the said council could also be understood in the light of the Tradition of the Church, as firmly espoused by Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. The Council Fathers understood the Second Vatican Council in light of the said Tradition of the Church. Even the excommunicated ultra-traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, signed the documents of Vatican II, with the understanding of Catholic Tradition (and I have Bishop Williamson to prove that to you).
About the former Pope (John Paul) it is a fact that he is human, and there is nothing in Catholic dogma that says a Pope being impeccable (which is a favorite conundrum among Protestant apologists). He may have committed many unfavorable acts, but we let God judge him on this.
Elder: Taken together, these documents extend the horizons of the Church' engagement with the modern world - through dialogue, openness towards other religions, and recognition of the primacy of conscience, in the search for truth within a social context of religious freedom."
Tridentine Catholic: I don’t have the space to refute all of these contentions, but suffice it to say that these claims should not be presented in simplistic manner, and should be demonstrated systematically. For there are instances wherein Popes, Councils denounced errors about the separation of Church and State, religious freedom, primacy of conscience, etc and although I agree with these, yet it would be very misleading to just point out these things without the proper context.
Elder: I hear in our community today worship songs popularized by the [Pentecostal] group. Hearing such in assemblies where elders are present, I can only assume rightly that there must have been prior endorsements of these for such songs to reach our corporate worship leaders.
Tridentine Catholic: Again, I would like to state that there is nothing wrong about these songs per se. It should not be confused with the issue about Catholics joining heretics in worship. Using these songs in our gatherings, and other assemblies is different, than joining the heretical writers of the songs in worship. Again, it is one thing to sing and play their songs in our Catholic gatherings (wherein most of these can be understood in a Catholic ‘sense’), but it is quite another to join heretics in their worship.
Elder: In the context of the email regarding the [Pentecostal] concert, I am inclined to state that we should recognize the "primacy of conscience of each one" and not take a stand to ban or promote attendance in this event. After all, there are Much more compelling theological discussions beyond attendance or non-attendance to this concert. The attached two articles are examples of such passionate discourses.
God bless,

I'll be posting next time a continuation of this discussion, but until then God bless you all.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,

A Brief Treatment of the ‘Word of God’

2008-04-10T05:38:00.000-07:00

A Brief Treatment of the ‘Word of God’
-By Armand Lamorte

1. What does the concept ‘Word of God’ mean?

The concept of the Word of God is a well embedded idea in the Judeo-Christian tradition, implicitly contained in the Old Testament, but in a rather a cloudy manner; and then later with all its fullness and understanding, through the New Covenant of Christ and His Church. The apostle John in the first chapter of his Gospel succinctly, yet explicitly conveys to us the importance of this concept in all of its existentiality and reality. The concept can be summarized as centered on the Nature of God, His relation to creatures, and His Revelation to mankind for their salvation.

A. On God’s Nature – conveys the reality of God as a Trinity of persons within the same Divine Nature. It highlights the Word of God to be distinctive, yet one in essence with the Godhead. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” John 1:1-2 NIV

B. Relation and dependence of Creatures – shows the relationship of creatures to the Word of God and their dependence on it, as revealed on the early chapters of Genesis, wherein God creates the world out of nothing (ex nihil) by uttering His ‘word’ dixitqve Devs… – “and God said…” The apostle John reiterates Genesis in the first chapter of his gospel and how important the Word of God is for the well-being of all creatures and their salvation, “…Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” John 1:3 NIV.

C. As the Supreme Revelation to Man – demonstrate as the peak of revelation, and the culmination of salvation history, wherein the apostle John declares in John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” Hence, the concept of the Word of God within the Christian context reaches its apex in the coming of Christ as Savior and Redeemer.

2. The basic role of community in the formation of the Scriptures.

– The community or the People of God, as moved and inspired by God in the very writing the words of the Holy Scriptures.

– God’s community, or the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit in protecting God’s written Word, which are the Scriptures.

– The Holy Spirit empowering the community, or the Church, to determine the canonicity of true scriptures.

– The community of God, or the Church, hands and passes down faithfully the Tradition she received from the apostles and the prophets, both orally and in written form.

– The Church, who is the community of God, protects God’s written word by virtue of her authority given to her by Christ.

– The Church defends the truths revealed by Christ through courage, authority, and Divine Providence cf. Matthew 16.

– The community of God, or the Church, confirms true teachings via God’s scriptures by virtue of the same authority.

3. The concepts of inspiration and canonicity.

Inspiration – is the “motivation” of God given to the human writers of the Scripture, to put into writing His word, whereby the writers are impelled (not compelled) to write through divine grace and assistance, all those that has to be written. It is one of ‘participation’ in the Divine Nature, wherein the biblical writers partake in the infallibility of God, in order to write only what was factual and true.

Canonicity – is the principle of authenticity of a certain writing, which is claiming of be Scripture. That it is truly inspired by God, hence it is considered that such writing was protected from every possible error, therefore authoritative and binding to the community of God or the Church. The term ‘canonicity’ was derived from the Greek, meaning, “a list” or ruler, - or “a rod” to be followed. It is the determination of the Church, by the virtue of guiding all men to all truth. It’s given onto her by Christ, which books consists the Bible.

4. Correlating God’s revelation in the life of the community and the Scriptures.

The apostle Paul writes down: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The Church, which is the community of God here on earth, contends with “…the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” Jude 1:3. The original Deposit of Faith was entrusted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to His apostles and their successors, is expressed in written form (i.e. the Scriptures) and in oral transmission (viz. Sacred Tradition). It is the Church that defines, exemplifies, and instructs with her Divine authority in teaching the community, or the faithful (and in all men eventually), from that same deposit of faith which is God’s revelation, so as to let them know how
to live according to the commandments of God.

Postmodern Traditionalism: Refuse, Resist!!

2008-04-06T22:48:00.000-07:00

The Descent of Modern Man

Pope St. Pius X whom we consider the Father of "Catholic Postmodern Traditionalism", in resisting Modern errors and the restoration and implementation of the eternal dogmas of the Catholic Church in our contemporary era. Pray for us, O Holy Father St. Pius X, that we be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

MARY AS OUR MODEL OF SPIRITUALITY

2008-03-29T06:48:00.000-07:00

MARY AS OUR MODEL OF SPIRITUALITY
-By Armand Lamorte

The subject of Mariology has taught us the importance of the role of Mary in the mission and spirituality of her Son and Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Church to fulfill and reveal to us the plan of salvation. It has shown us the depth and the intricacies of the Christian faith, whereby a simple young girl who, according to the standard of the world, is but a nuisance formed by the simplicity and commonality of that present age, and was in turn the chosen one of God being the fountain of the fullness of revelation to the rest of mankind.

The “Marian” dogmas of the Catholic faith show us the magnitude of Mary’s endeavor, for she holds NOT merely a place nor a throne of honor or glorification, rather of hardship, sacrifice, cooperation, and an entire dedication of her life to a mission whose beneficiaries are unworthy. The mission of Christ was also the mission and task of Mary. She received it the moment she gave her ‘yes’ to God, at the Annunciation. These dogmas are not only a fulfillment of God’s relation to Mary, nor a mere privilege which was simply handed onto her. On the contrary, it is an ongoing process, both on the part of Mary, who even now continues to be a Mother, no longer of Jesus alone, but also of the growing Church. To this we her children, are called to the spirituality of the ‘Theotokos’, to which, she as our model (or our only sure model) on how to be a good Christian – a true follower of the Christ.

There is no other spirituality that maybe available to Our Lord Jesus, other than that of the Mother of God. Both the respective spirituality and the dimensions of the religious way of life, and also of the laity, must be, and should be made to conform to Mary. Why? She has given her full assent to the Divine Nature, to the Supreme will of God despite her limited (though perfect) humanity – by entrusting to the Lord everything that He wills for her, and her family, is the only good worthy of faith. It is only in Mary, where the diversification of Christian spirituality is to be found united. The religious, and the laity are combined, yet so distinctive in her manner of living her mission that she is BOTH a mother and a ‘religious nun’, in her scrupulous intent to follow and do the will of her Lord, who is also her own flesh and blood. Nothing can be more beautiful than that!

Our Lord Jesus is both true God and true man, as taught by the Nicene Creed, meaning that as man, Mary was superior to Christ especially during His childhood. Christ was unfailingly obedient to his mother whom He loved so much that He probably anticipated Her mom’s chores tasked just for Him. But as God, it was Mary who is obedient, and obeyed everything Her Son asked in the Father’s name. Mary then is the sure model of humility and obedience which is unquestionable. An example for both the religious and lay aspects of our faith, viz. to do what is expected of us in our respective vocations. It can be said that Marian spirituality is the culmination of the spectrum of the Christian aspect of life, which are concretely manifested in our respective callings. The apostolic life of a Christian – how a Catholic ought to live, is bannered by the examples of Mary, as reflected by the Church’s teaching on her. The Marian dogmas of the Catholic faith set forth before us, the mystery of human life, and a God who used the example of a mere human child, to the overtone of our humanity.

The subject of Mariology has directed us to the virtue of humility, as practiced by Our Lady, while she was here on earth. It’s interesting to point out the irony that this subject shows to us the great titles of the Mary, and her numerous “privileges” which was given and set aside for her by Our Lord, yet these titles, especially the Catholic Marian dogmas, point us towards the life of simplicity. Not of grandstanding, nor that of a celebrity, rather of an inconspicuous life ruled by the virtue of humility. For example, the Marian dogma and title of the Mother of God, shows us how simple a life of a human mother whose duties are no less than distinct than that of any ordinary mother, in giving birth to her child. To guide and take care of her child, while providing his daily needs. The same title also demonstrate the religious dimension of Mary’s task in educating, feeding, loving, uplifting those people given to you by God, who are in need. This religious task of Mary was never asked by her. She simply complied and trusted God in everything He intends for her. There was no hiatus found in Mary’s obedience and humility, not even a moment. She gave her “totus tuus” to God.

The Christian life with it’s distinct, yet unified vocations, are like that of Mary and Jesus. It is shrouded by mystery. It is quite startling to find out that the Son of God and His Mother fills merely a small percentage of the New Testament (much less the entire Bible). Even then, what was recorded of their life in the Bible catches some instances, if not highlights, of their earthly life on earth. During the time when Our Lord Jesus started His ministry, His Mother was just in the shadows following Him. The Mother of Christ was mostly found in the dark, never to out stage anyone, not even His Son’s disciples. It is exactly this that Christians of both the religious and the laity are called to imitate and follow such an example. We are called to be Christ’s disciples, His followers. We exist only within His shadows, and never prideful enough in out staging the Master. With regard to Christ, Christians boast and magnify our Lord, and share the knowledge and relationship with Him, but when it comes to egoistic appraisal, we simply keep our mouth shut.

The dimensions of Marian spirituality are diversified into the many aspects and callings of the Church. Yet we find the diversification united in our Blessed Mother, due to the overwhelming task she fulfilled, and is still fulfilling, in behalf of her children. Her spirituality is the peak of the Christian faith, especially to the call of evangelizing the world. She, whose act bore, carried, and gave birth to the Word of God made flesh, opens the call for Christian vocation to the world. Mary is, an apostle, martyr, evangelist, mother, daughter, follower, servant, and spiritual director, hence the summit of the Christian life and mission.

Her relationship with the Trinity only exemplifies this truth even more. Her role with the Godhead manifests the Christian vocation, at its peak. Her role in heaven is her way of life here on earth. Mary's spirituality can never be separated from our Christian vocations, for in her alone (through her Son) can be found the perfection of obedience, apostleship, and at the same the love and caring of family life. It’s never too much to say that the Blessed Mother is the woman version of Our Lord Jesus Christ. She is the path to Our Lord, the same way we are invited to be like our Mother who is the mother of truth (in the very literal sense of the word).

Finally, let this Easter season give us the time and the opportunity to set of wills like that of Mary our mother, to those of God, to those of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let our meditation in this glorious season rival and surpassed our dedication, and our determination of Lent, to aim to please and appease our heavenly Father by doing what our Blessed Mother has done. Let the dogmas and the teachings of our Holy Mother Church pertaining to Mary give us the strength and the reflection that we’ll need to call God Our Father, and be like Mary our mother in the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Totus tuus Maria!!!

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

IS THE NOVUS ORDO A NEW RITE?

2008-02-29T18:22:00.000-08:00

IS THE NOVUS ORDO A NEW RITE?
By Armand Lamorte

“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the Churches to other NEW RITES, let him be anathema” – Session 7, Canon 13 of the Ecumenical Council of Trent

Unity or clear cut division?
The Pope, last July 7 of 2007, issued a motu proprio that was to ‘forever’ change the course of Church history, well at least within the next 10 years of the Catholic Church. The Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI was issued to set straight the liturgical confusion and division that wrought the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. Although the main aim of His Holiness was “…an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”, the decree brought about further divisions within the Roman Catholic Church. If there is anything Summorum Pontificum accomplished, it is the clear-cut distinctions between those of the liberalists, loyalists, and the sedevacantists.

The Pope’s motu proprio created an enduring polarization within the Catholic Church. Many of those in the extreme right, the sedevacantists, became all the more fierce in their criticism of the Pope and of the present Church. These people claiming to be “traditional Catholics”, or as expounded by a famous sedevacantist, to be “consistent” Catholics, focused much of their attention and criticism of the Church, into the so-called Novus Ordo “rite”, and its “clear” deviation from traditional Catholic teaching. Ultra-traditionalists point out the official doctrines of the Conciliar Church as being alien to the historic Catholic Church, due to the irreconcilable differences before and after Vatican II. They bring forth the past, to haunt the Conciliar Church of its “novelties”, which they perceive as contrary to the teachings set down by popes and councils. This by means of old papal documents, decrees, Church canons, edicts, witness and testimonies of the Church Fathers, works of the saints, and other historical accounts. Hence, those who denounce the present Church of its ‘ordinary’ liturgical usage, base their critique in what they understood as a departure from the apostolic Faith, namely from the pre-Vatican II era, to the post-conciliar era, during the 1960’s.

The ‘Sedevacante’ contention
Ultra-traditionalists compare the time of Patriarch Athanatios I of Alexandria during the Arian apostasy, with that of ours; wherein virtually the entire Church succumbed to the heresy of Arius. But perhaps the most famous and the most convincing attack leveled against the Conciliar Church, and the Novus Ordo, comes not from the time of the Church Fathers, rather from the beginning of modern period where another form of apostasy was taking place – the time of the Reformation, the time of the Council of Trent. Ultra-traditionalists are fond of utilizing the canons and decrees of the said Council, and hi-jacking much of its related documents (Quo Primum, Catechism of Trent, etc) to fault the mainstream Church of heresy, and make their cheap shots at the Novus Ordo for apostasy. They insist that the Conciliar Church violated one of the infallible precepts of the Council concerning the liturgical rites of the entire Catholic Church (not just it's Roman branch).

Hence, according to Session 7, Canon 13 of the ecumenical Council of Trent, it says:

“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the Churches to other new rites, let him be anathema”

These hardliners deplore the present state of the Conciliar Church, because it “apostatized” from the historic Catholic faith, particularly in revising, or in their own terms, “changing” the rite of Mass into another rite – the Novus Ordo. They immediately quote Session 7 Canon 13. And with this logic, they try to impute the Novus Ordo, being a new rite of the Church, in order to condemn it. It is sad to know that even many of those inside the Church, loyal to the present Magisterium, describe this particular Ordo of the Church as a “new rite”. Even some traditional Catholics understood what they thought the Latin Church having two rites: the Tridentine rite, as the Old rite; and the Novus Ordo – the “New” rite. This is despite of the fact that there were NO definitions made by the Church, as to what constitutes a “new rite”. Since after the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI, the question remains. Is the Novus Ordo the “new rite” condemned by Trent, as understood by ultra-traditionalists and sedevacantists? Or were they simply wrong?

The weight of Summorum Pontificum
Pope Benedict XVI probably came close in answering this question. By virtue of the same apostolic authority with that of St. Pius V; and guided by the Holy Spirit through the Church’s indefectibility, he said in his Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum:

ARTICLE I – The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,'…THEY ARE, IN FACT TWO USAGES OF THE ONE ROMAN RITE. – Summorum Pontificum

Notice how the Holy Father scrupulously goes behind the infallible definition of Trent, by virtue of his teaching office – he declares that the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine is IN FACT one and the same rite! Nothing is new here. If there is anything that can be classified as a “new rite” it is definitely NOT the Novus Ordo. Perhaps due to the Church’s indefectibility (if not infallibility), or owing to sheer brilliance, the Pope emphatically clarifies “…it is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a two-fold use of one and the same rite” he said in one of his statements to the Bishops. Hence, a faithful Catholic recognizes the existence of the Novus Ordo as a usage of the same rite, infallibly defined by the Council of Trent. To this, a Roman Catholic should give his firm assent, in account of one’s oath of obedience to the Holy Father being the highest legislator and interpreter of Ecclesiastical law. It is also high time for Catholics to refrain in referring to the Novus Ordo as a "New Rite", although some people usually don’t mean anything bad by it, whoever such a description can certainly add confusion and further misunderstandings about the Church. Perhaps a simple yet important step for an “internal reconciliation” (or any reconciliation for that matter) is to use accurate terms and fair descriptions, in describing the things pertaining to belief and religious practice. In doing this, I think a huge step for a truly orthodox ecumenism has already been achieved.

Traditional Catholic faith and the faith of Abraham
Ultra-traditionalists get around Summorum Pontificum by arguing that if one compares the Mass codified by St. Pius V, from the one promulgated by Paul VI, it would show the difference, or the “defection” of the Novus Ordo from the Tridentine Mass. Nevertheless, with all the attacks unleashed by ultra-traditionalists basing it on such a contention, one is tempted to ask whether the change was substantial, or merely accidental in nature. Sedevacantists would have to concede to history that even popes, in between Vatican II and Trent, made changes and inserted their revisions, from the rubrics to the text, and has written encyclicals as to why the change. One immediately senses the disparity of the “airtight case” of the sedevacantist when he realizes the historical inconsistency it would necessarily entail – when a pope, appears to contradict another pope. To argue that the Novus Ordo is in fact a different Rite than the one codified by Trent, the sedevacantist would have to provide legitimate authorities, and valid logic in condemning the Novus Ordo in the face of a Pope having said already that the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine are expressions of one and the same rite. It maybe true however that such a “simplistic” refutation barely scratches the surface of the ongoing debate of sedevacantism. Nevertheless, if one takes seriously the contention of Trent and the fact presented by history, we should opt for another alternative namely the authority of Church e.g. Summorum Pontificum, than the opinitionative anarchy proposed by ultra-traditionalists. We should further ask ultra-traditionalists their authority in condemning the Church, and not based on their fallible understanding of what Church law or doctrine demands. We are reminded by the skeptical school that men don’t even know they are in error, when they are in fact already in error. This is clear proof of the ongoing anarchy and decadence of the sedevacantist (and other ultra-traditionalist) movements. And, this is exactly why Our Lord Jesus Christ founded a Church, with the promise that even the gates of hell won’t prevail against it.

These are trying times when it is demanded of us to put our Catholicism into practice – not only our allegiance and obedience, but to place our whole-hearted trust to the teaching office of the Church. We are called ‘Catholics’ not because of our private opinions, and individual interpretations of Scripture, Tradition, or Church law, rather it is because we believed the contrary despite our “clinging” to our own opinions. Like our father in faith Abraham, we trust and put our whole faith in the Lord, when everything else point to the opposite direction.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

PROVING THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST -Refuting the Swoon Theory

2008-02-10T18:34:00.000-08:00

PROVING THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
Refuting the Swoon Theory
-By Armand Lamorte

This is the first of a three-part article (in non-successive form); demonstrating the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, while refuting the inadequate explanations that skeptics espouse in explaining away the fact of the resurrection. We would divide and debunk each of skeptical explanation per article, so as to maintain focal deliberation and conciseness.

Our Task

I believe that it is an invaluable undertaking on the part of us Catholics, in knowing the reality of our risen Lord, and the task that He has conferred on us. It is profitable, not only for us who believe, but also to those who remain in ignorance regarding such an important truth. Hence, having inherited the apostolic commission at our Baptism and Confirmation, it is then our duty as Catholics to explain, demonstrate and to prove to all the Good News that a certain Jewish carpenter, Yes’hua bar Yosef, has indeed risen from the dead. We respond to our Holy Church’s call to apostolic evangelization, by learning the basics of our Faith, and correcting those who are in error about Our Lord and Savior, and our Catholic Faith that they who disbelieve, may also experience the saving Grace of Our Lord through His Church.

Manner of Deliberation

In order to make these articles relatively small and manageable, we will only tackle the three most infamous alternatives proposed by skeptics i.e. swoon, conspiracy (theft), hallucination, in explaining away the empty tomb; since, to take into account all the issues and matters that pertains to the resurrection, would take a huge volume which is quite undesirable, especially to fast-paced readers. What we’ll do, is to briefly refute the attempts advanced by skeptics, by citing the difficulties, deficiencies and the illogicality of such alternative positions, in falling short to explain the circumstances surrounding the resurrection scene. Let us then begin to examine, if these so-called explanations could stand up to critical and objective investigation of the evidence presented by history and careful reasoning.

We first evaluate the swoon theory, wherein those who suggest such a theory, claim that Jesus didn’t die on the cross but was only swooned. The theory goes on and states that he later survived, and that His “badly informed” apostles misconstrue this as a ‘resurrection’.

I. THE SWOON THEORY

The theory goes something like this:

Jesus, after suffering heavily from his endeavor with Pilate, the Jews, etc, he was finally nailed to the Cross. He underwent excruciating pain, psychological and physiological trauma, and has loss much blood; after which he was swooned, and then was taken down from the Cross, wrapped, and then buried. After his body rested for sometime, he was later revived, and then went out and appeared to his disciples. His apostles then insisted that it was a resurrection.

This theory was first introduced by a man called Venturini and was later propagated by a heretical group of Muslims called as the Ahmadiya. Like the rest of Islam, the Ahmadiya believe and affirm that Jesus never died on the cross, as it is interpreted in their book, the Koran. For this reason, it is therefore the rightful task of the Christian, to demonstrate the weakness of this theory and its untenable claims, in the face of evidence. A short, and brief critique of the theory, is sufficient enough to refute the proponents of such a theory and raise doubts on there propositions in favor of it.

The formulation of the swoon theory is quite ingenious; however, a simple commonsensical question gives the death-blow to such a theory. How is it possible for a man after being scourged (for a more graphic explanation, see the Movie “The Passion of the Christ”), imprisoned, taking the long journey to Calvary carrying a heavy cross, and without food, enduring intense exhaustion, being crucified for six-long hours under the scorching sun, then pierced by a lance, could have survived such an unbearable agony?

The Prima Facie
The people present at the crucifixion scene, were all convinced that Jesus was certainly dead. The centurion present, whose task is to ensure the death of those who undertake the penalty, made sure that Jesus was dead. The strong blow of the lance and the motionless impression that the body made, is enough to satisfy any inquirer the assurance of Jesus’ death. Even contemporary doctors of medicine can confirm and authenticate that the surge of water and blood from the side of the body, reveals the occurrence of rapid failing in the vital organs. Thus, the blow of the spear and the flow of water and blood from the side prove that He was already dead for a while. Everyone who was living at that time believed that Jesus was dead, His enemies, the chief Priests and even Pilate who was astonished that Jesus immediate expiration was later informed that Jesus was indeed lifeless. The fear now of those who placed Jesus to death, was that His disciples might steal the body, and use it for their own purpose and end, to create a commotion to prove Jesus’ early claims that He’ll rise from the dead. No person, at any point in time, who is involved in the crucifixion, considers the thought of Jesus surviving death. Hence, even extra-biblical testimonies of history corroborate, Jesus the Nazarene was put to death by crucifixion, upon the orders of Pontius Pilate.

Let us suppose however for the sake of the argument, Jesus was in a state of swoon, and when he was buried and laid at his tomb. Let us also consider their claim that He was later revived having rested for sometime. And that it was because of the embalming qualities of the spices and the cooling atmosphere of the sepulcher, which resuscitated and made him conscious:

Even Skeptics disagree
The skeptic should then first answer the question: How is it possible for a dying man, in need of medical attention and food, be able to unloosen himself from the heavy burial clothes with pounds of spices, puts away a ton of stone blocking the entrance that three healthy women prove incapable of moving, then taking on well-trained and armed Roman soldiers being alerted by such a ruckus, be capable of overcoming such impossible odds? How could Jesus, in his weakened state, pull-off such a stunt? Should a healthy man be placed in a given situation, the possibility of escape would still be small. It is not surprising then that even skeptic E. Le Camus declares that for a man to survive such an agonizing endeavor and perform such a feat is even more miraculous, than the simplicity of the resurrection itself.

It is quite strange for a wounded man, who barely managed to untangle himself out of his grave clothes, yet finds the time to roll up its linen wrappings exactly as if the corpse was still there, before escaping. Merrill C. Tenney, a biblical scholar, comments about the strange position of the burial clothes: “The shape of the body was still apparent in them, but the flesh and bone had disappeared” – (Tenney, TS, 116-117). What is more astonishing is for a resuscitated yet weakened man, to roll back a huge stone all by himself, without disturbing the sleeping guards (assuming that they are sleeping of course, which is extremely unlikely).

Evangelical scholar Josh McDowell explains:

“It is absurd to suppose that Jesus could have fought off the Roman guard even if He had managed to roll away the stone. Such men as would have kept the watch should scarcely have had difficulty in dealing with…a half-dead out of the sepulcher”

The corroboration of witnesses
The soldiers, who were at their post, guarding the tomb, are unimpeachable witnesses of what had happened that morning. The fact that they acted out of the ordinary by merely reporting to the chief Priests of what had truly happened, without any suggestion or hint of any “fistful” engagement nor encounter of a “dead” prisoner escaping, is evidence that Jesus could have only been risen. Since if it were a simple swoon, the guards would have dealt with the escaping corpse by putting it permanently to rest, and then later reported the said encounter to the authorities. It is important to point out that as early as now that the Roman guards could have never fallen asleep, allowing a person under their custody (in this case a corpse), to be moved (much less escape). The penalty rewarded for such negligence is found in Acts 12:19). However, we’ll deal more of the Roman soldiers, being evidence of the resurrection, in the next article when we assess the conspiracy (theft) theory. For now, it is enough to know that the guards were wide awake, since it was never their interest, nor their best of intentions should they have fallen asleep.

Even the Jewish elders and those responsible, never entertained such an explanation, or as a proposition to refute the later claim of the Apostles’ preaching of the resurrection. Not one of them challenged Peter or John when interrogated by the council, and neither one of these elders, nor those of the Jews, attempted to refute the Apostles’ claim that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. It was even recorded that the elders of Jerusalem had nothing to say in opposition to them and their preaching cf. John 4:20.

The witness of the Apostles
The witness of the apostles is also undeniable fact against the idea of a ‘swoon’. They were all astonished when they saw Jesus full of life preaching and reminding them of the scriptures fulfillment. A resuscitated person doesn’t have the time to teach scripture, especially someone who have just undergone crucifixion. The apostle Thomas, who was “the Skeptic” at first, was also convinced that the man who appeared before him was the risen Christ, and not a resuscitated corpse. Jesus even responds to his previous challenge to verify, by inserting his fingers into His wounded side. If Jesus were merely swooned because of his wounds, then He would never have encouraged Thomas in entertaining such an idea. Furthermore, a bleeding and wounded person, who is psychologically traumatized and in need of medical attention, would never have the capacity to enter a fortified door (see John 20:19), then later declare “Peace be with you” and preach about the Holy Spirit. Even the reaction of the apostles is an uncontestable support of the resurrection, seeing as Jesus wounded after pulling off his remarkable stunt at the tomb, then entering a fortified door, would have made the apostles responded in treating his wounds, as soon as possible. A swooned Jesus would made the apostles promptly looked for a doctor. Only a resurrected Christ could have impressed such a shock, rendering them either amazed, or stunned.

On the psychological dimension, the Apostle’s impression as later confirmed by their actions, after seeing Jesus – from the time when they watched Him die, up to the time of Easter Sunday is in itself a silent, yet loud testimony. All of them were completely transformed, from “scaredy-cats” to courageous evangelists, witnesses and fearsome martyrs. If Jesus were merely swooned, then His appearance to the disciples won’t be of any difference, since it would only confirm their fear and hopelessness; furthermore, if Jesus was swooned, the disciples would be the first to denounced Him and spread the “Bad” news that their former teacher was a liar.

This scenario presents itself quite difficult for a skeptic. Hence even David Strauss, a skeptic himself, leveled this attack against the swoon theory:

“…It is impossible that a being half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment…could have given to the disciples the impression that he was the Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life…Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression… [And] could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.” – (Strauss, D.F. Life of Jesus for the People, 412)

Conclusion
The probability of Jesus surviving after undergoing of scourging, beaten, carrying of the weight Cross up to Golgotha, then finally being crucified for nearly 3 hours – is beyond possibility, and even logical sanity. The circumstances surrounding the event can only fit the fact of the resurrection. It is therefore clear that to suggest a mere resuscitation (and not the Resurrection) defeats and twists the evidence presented; thus, based upon the foregoing demonstration, we can conclude that such a hypothesis (i.e. swoon) is worthy only of rejection. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that if belief in the resurrection be considered an absurdity, more so that the very idea of the ‘swoon’ is absolute rational insanity.

Saint John Bosco and the traditional Catholic faith

2008-02-01T21:59:00.000-08:00

Saint John Bosco and the traditional Catholic faith
By Armand Lamorte

It has been 20 years since I graduated and left the institution of Don Bosco Makati. Well, it has been a topsy-turvy experience, spending virtually all of your childhood in that Catholic school. The peer pressure, workloads, deadlines (yup once upon a time even we had our first “deadlines”), exams, and tons of homework, coupled with teachers, who at moments notice will ask you about the dogmatism of their teachings, and the sophistry of their intellectual leanings, all of the hocus-pocus of mere tempest in a teapot. A Catholic school in which, the daily, weekly, and the monthly masses was scrupulously followed. A heavy emphasis on conduct grades and a generic course on Religion, was also implemented and observed. It was during those days when a typical Bosconian would experience a kind of ‘Nostalgia’ when being introduced to the story of a man ‘in black’, wearing a funny-looking hat, and a face laced-with a smile quite imposing, and suggesting at the same time – a life that young people ought to live.

I never really appreciated Saint John Bosco, except only by name and my identity as a Bosconian. I can even remember complaining to one of our priests that our patron’s ideology is not too much of the young, especially being “in” with the youth of today. Don Bosco’s Catholicism was too “legalistic” too many ‘do this’ and ‘do that’, ‘don’t do this’ and ‘don’t do that’. As a young teen beginning to question the world and religion, Saint John Bosco was no exception. I was more attracted to the Pentecostal forms of worship or the Protestant view of salvation, wherein one need not work, and just simply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ alone! There’s no need for Mary (and her “ridiculous” titles) and especially the saints, to further your salvation. You can be accepted as who you are, and not conform to the demands of an unyielding religion. Surely, I attended the ‘Novus Ordo’ Mass almost everyday, but not understanding why. Slowly my mind was affirming an easier and “loving” path of Christ, as proclaimed by TV evangelists, and pastors of the different Protestant denominations. Although, Mass said back in school has Pentecostal-Protestant elements in it, like bands, dancing, priests walking like Protestant ministers etc, but it wasn’t enough. Catholicism was simply dogmatic, rigid and legalistic. It came to a point where I abhorred this Saint after reading a book authored by a Salesian Priest, wherein St. John Bosco apparently talked to one of his dead students (i.e. St. Dominic Savio) in a vision or apparition, whom Don Bosco “knew” was already in heaven. The dead student began telling him the importance of spiritual “merits”, graces “obtained” through the Mass and other personal sacrifices, indulgences, and the protection of Mary. He affirmed the faith of Don Bosco’s boys in the oratory, and about the perils and dangers they’re facing. How many of them are devoid of the “grace of God” due to the sins of lust, and spiritual laxities (Boring!). The dead student stressed that frequent Mass and frequent communion, frequent confession, visitation to the Blessed Sacrament, and a firm devotion to the “Mother of God” will be the only aid and hope of a person in that most dreadful moment of his death, wherein the devil unleashes his utmost fury upon the passing soul. To me, this is one of the killing strokes that made me dislike Don Bosco even more. The rigidity of his beliefs, based on “hallucinations”, and legalistic garble made me despise him the most. As a “good” Bosconian, not wanting to offend his patron nonetheless, by trying to “accommodate” his gothic interpellation of the Gospel, I’ve simply condemned him and his teachings to the ‘Dark ages’ and to antiquity. Nevertheless, I’ve consulted another Salesian priest, who’s so apologetic of his master. He reminded me that the beliefs of Don Bosco shouldn’t be interpreted literally, rather should be taken into proper consideration i.e. its historical context, back in Don Bosco’s time. But I asked myself; on what context should I interpret Don Bosco and his faith, in the light of the modern world? Does this mean indulgences, prayers to the saints, going to confession, attending mass, etc, are not as what Don Bosco believed? Since these things which he held so dearly, can after all be interpreted differently, in a manner which is so ‘watered-down’? Can there be another interpretation to these practices, to which the question is that either they’re “salvific”, or not? I won’t have any of it; either the Mass is salvific, propitiatory, expiatory, or optional – if not totally unnecessary for one’s salvation. There can be no other interpretation to such basic questions, whether past, present, or future – so I thought.

As a traditional Catholic, I’ve come to understand this great Saint, his devotion, dedication, and loyalty to Tradition that he lived and toiled all his life to make this the habit of his students – the habit of salvation. Contrary to my former belief, it was not rigid, nor legalistic. No one would condemn one’s stomach for being “too legalistic” about eating. It’s either you eat and live, or you starve to death. There’s no “legalism” about it, it is reality. That’s reality, likewise that’s the salvation offered to us by Christ in partaking the sacraments of the Church, to properly dispose ourselves in receiving the life of God, for us to live an eternal life with Him in heaven. It is not a question of “strictness” or “legality”. It is rather an invitation. We are free to choose, to accept or reject his offer, which is life eternal. No one can force us, neither God nor the devil. It is a free act on our part. Physical food can give us the nutrition that our body needs to live, to enjoy life; or we can simply forget about eating and die. If earthly food can sustain us thus allowing us to experience the love and the relationship of our families and friends here on earth; how much more can the spiritual sustenance of God’s life, His grace, allow us to have a relationship with a loving God, to be in communion with a huge spiritual family, not only in this world, but even the next. We are neither forced, nor obliged, to accept this relationship. This is the message of the great saint – God’s invitation for us to partake of His life, all it takes is our response to His call.

Saint John Bosco never presented the traditional Catholic faith, as a juridical, legalistic entity, wherein one must do this; otherwise “you go to hell”. No, on the contrary, the saint pointed out that Catholicism is built upon the relationship with God, who loves man so much that He gave His only Son to redeem us from misery. It never was a question of legalistic-ritualism, far from it! A woman who has beauty, kindness, and fidelity, plus having all the ‘feminine’ traits that a man would want, who just had an unfaithful relationship with man who possesses nothing, save rampant infidelity, and physical deformity; nevertheless, she can freely offer herself up once again, and invite the said man once more into an intimate relationship despite his deplorable state. The most that the man can do is to respond to her invitation by positively reforming his unfaithful ways, and offering her the greatest forms of appeasement he can ever produce (due to his prior unfaithfulness) to totally win her heart back. This he can do by giving to her and assuring her his whole life, as clear evidence of his love. Anything less would be wishful thinking. He has to restore to the woman the honor, respect, and the justice, which he has destroyed because of his infidelity. Only by doing so can this woman fully realized the love that the man can offer, since he is willing to give everything that he has (e.g. Marrying her, being a good husband and father to their kids). No one can rightly say that both the woman and the man were too “legalistic” or prescriptive. In the same way, it is certainly inaccurate to conclude that your giving-off flowers this coming Valentine’s Day, in showing your love and appreciation for your family members, or your respective love one, be dubbed as “acts of ritualism”? The Catholic faith is God’s invitation to man to enter into a relationship, wherein God will give man his inner most desire viz. God’s very life – salvation; all it takes for man is to believe Him. Nothing can be more important than that.

Attending the traditional Latin Mass or the Tridentine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, can certainly grow goose-bumps on any Catholic pondering the fact that this was the faith and liturgy believed and observed by the saints. As if one can still see their passive images kneeling, standing, and praying along with you, as the Mass is being offered. Once upon in their life, they’ve struggled for salvation, failed, and accepted God’s renewing invitation, thereby finally receiving His priceless pearl – an eternal life with Him. The Tridentine Mass is the greatest proof that God’s love for man stands up until the rest of eternity. It is the single most perfect expression of His love, both to appease the wrath of eternal justice, due to man’s initial rejection, and to rectify and uplift man from his “spiritual” deformity. This is why they offer the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One can be left in a state of awe if firmly and fervently meditated. The Mass, as prayed and offered in the Traditional Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, is the very same worship and form of Saint John Bosco, as he himself offered the same sacrifice, saying the exact same words, the exact same gestures, the very same beliefs that a traditional Catholic now upholds. To attend one, a person (especially a Bosconian) will immediately discern how Saint John Bosco was deeply connected to the Mass of all times.

Don Bosco points us towards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as the pinnacle and source of God’s life, grace, forgiveness, and redemption. It is through the sacrifice of the Mass, and our partaking of the Eucharist that this life of God is made available to us. It was only after embracing the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and her true teachings that I began to realize the value, and the veracity of Don Bosco’s wisdom. It is only by accepting the true doctrines of the Catholic Church, devoid of anything that is ‘modern’ or any admixture of syncreticism, can one grasp the reason, and the rationality of Don Bosco’s words and acts to his pupils. The Tridentine Mass was Don Bosco’s heritage to society, to the youth at large, and to all Bosconians in particular. It is sad to see that most of the Salesians and Bosconians (and even other Catholics) of today only follow their patron, in the generic, and mostly just for his name’s sake. Worse, they have remolded him in order to make him accommodate their preconceptions and presumptions, as compelled by the modern world. Don Bosco without the traditional Catholic faith and the Tridentine Rite is NO Don Bosco at all!

Don Bosco was never taken out of context! Rather it was us living in a modern world that prefer the seemingly easy path, and have taken out of context the orthodoxy of this great teacher and confessor. It is my belief that only when a person accepts the very faith, the ancient liturgy, and the same practice of Don Bosco can one surely say that he is truly and indeed a “Bosconian”. It is only after accepting the traditional Catholic faith, assisting in the Traditional Latin Mass, and affirming Sacred Tradition that I’ve finally said to myself “Now I truly am, a Bosconian”.

Sancti Ioannes Bosco et Dominice Savio, orate pro nobis.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, NO SALVATION": Catholic or Iglesia?

2008-01-29T16:38:00.000-08:00

Hello,

I present to you another dialogue concerning the Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and apparently the Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine as well. This was brought to my attention by conservative reader not wanting to go “too far”. For us to say that the Catholic Church and the Iglesia ni Cristo of the deceased Felix Manalo, was teaching the same thing, concerning those outside the true Church of Christ. I find it beneficial to those who might have the same concern, especially those Catholics, who unknowingly reject a defined dogma of the Church, probably because of their “conservatism”, relations to non-Catholics, or has a fear in being associated with heretics. Some basic comparisons are made between the two Churches, and the difference of the orthodox understanding of the principle and of the Catholic dogma. Also, highlights of the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church are cited as authorities, in settling the question for Catholic readers.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, NO SALVATION": Catholic or Iglesia?

Conservative Reader: Is it true that the Catholic Church teaches that those outside her fold will not be saved? I thought this was a false teaching made by exclusivist heretics like that of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Can you provide proofs or evidences that this teaching viz. outside the Catholic Church no one is absolutely saved, is indeed taught by the Church?

The Author: Regardless of what the Iglesia ni Cristo teaches, the Catholic Church, by virtue of her perpetual teaching given to her by Our Lord Jesus, she firmly teaches that a person outside the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, cannot be saved.

1). The reason for this is that if a person truly “accepts” Christ as his Lord and Savior, it is but expected of him to be obedient and to come into His Mystical Body that is the Catholic Church. Catholics and Protestants agree that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Savior for man. Now, the Catholic perspective then justifiably demands that one has to truly accept Jesus Christ FULLY and objectively (i.e. His mystical Body, to respect and obey the authority He left to govern which is the Church, to receive Him in the Holy Sacraments etc.), not only in the area of “feelings” and emotion. Otherwise, ones “acceptance” of Christ, becomes null and void due to his persistence of disobedience.

2). On the Iglesia ni Cristo, it does not necessarily mean that everything that the heretics teach is automatically false. On the contrary, some aspects and tenets of their beliefs are in accord with the true faith e.g. the existence of One God, the necessity of the Church to be saved. We don't condemn these heretics for the truths that they believe (e.g. Jesus as the Christ), rather we reject them due to their disobedience and false doctrines.

3). Here are the proofs. I only place those teachings which are infallible i.e. Papal declarations via Ex Cathedra and Ecumenical Council pronouncements that were preserved by the Holy Spirit from error:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved..."

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that NO ONE, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, EVEN if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Conservative Reader: You stated: “…if a person truly “accepts” Christ as his Lord and Savior, it is but expected of him to be obedient and to come into His Mystical Body that is the Catholic Church…Otherwise, ones “acceptance” of Christ, becomes null and void due to his persevering disobedience.” Granted that ones’ acceptance of Christ is nullified if that person did not embrace the true Faith –tantamount to disobedience, but what about those who doesn’t know the Catholic Church to be the true religion of Jesus Christ? Or those who do NOT even know Jesus Christ? The Iglesia ni Cristo argues that despite their so-called "invincible ignorance" those outside the true Church of Christ cannot be saved.

The Author: The Catholic Church IS the true Church of Jesus Christ, and not the "Iglesia ni Cristo" of Felix Manalo. It is she whom we must believe and listen to, not the heretics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“…Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” –CCC 847

Pope Pius IX made it clear that though the Catholic Church “…is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” Has nonetheless taught that those who are invincibly ignorant, i.e. they who have no access to the gospel, they who never heard the name of Christ nor His true Church, and they who are moved by grace and the moral law, trying to know what is the true Faith YET have no access, or impaired (e.g. the retarded, and senile etc.) meaning that IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT that they’re ignorant, may nevertheless receive through the mercy of God, be united mystically (and mysteriously) to the Catholic Church, and hence they too may be saved. We should notice that such persons are STILL incorporated to the Catholic Church in order for them to be saved (through the baptism of desire and the "informal" incorporation to the Church), this of course with God’s grace working in their sincerity, despite of their ignorance. This can be viewed as a very narrow exemption to the Divine rule. Also, given the stream of modern telecommunication and the internet, the wealth of information, and the speed of today’s data, such extenuating circumstances would seem very unlikely; but who knows, for there will be occasions where there are (and will be) people invincibly ignorant of the truth, and for these people God will judge justly and mercifully. On the other hand, a person who wants to be ignorant (and persists in ignorance) so that he does not even bother to know the true Faith, is nonetheless guilty, and may not be spared from God’s wrathful judgment.

Needless to say however, Pope Pius IX also WARNS us that to unjustly condemn or to assert those who are outside the Church (living or dead) are ipso facto damned or eternally condemned, would be answerable to God and might surprisingly find themselves outside the very Kingdom of God instead. For to further inquire, or judge those people outside of the visible bounds of the Catholic Church would be placing oneself in God’s place who alone knows and judges those who are saved, and those to be condemned. It is on this same ground that the Church reminds and obliges us of our sacred duty to evangelize all men to the fullness of Christ’s truth.

Going back to your comparison between the Catholic Church and the Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo, it is already proven by history, through the testimonies of the early Christians, the Fathers of the Church, and the early councils that the Catholic Church was the same Church upheld in the earliest period of the Christian era. It is she, whom Our Lord Jesus promised to Saint Peter that even the gates of hell can not prevail. Christ promised His Church that the Holy Spirit will guide her unto all truth cf. John 16:13. It is the Catholic Church who then posseses (and claims) the gift of infallibility and indefectibility as fulfilling Christ's promise to St. Peter and to the other Apostles, in which even the Iglesia members does not claim such qualities for their Church. It is surprising to know that even the Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo concedes and recognizes the fact that the Pope and our bishops have direct succession to Peter and the Apostles. Even they believe and acknowledge this, as a historical fact.

It is true that the Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo teaches a rigorist view of the dogma (viz. heretical), but Christian history, and Catholic teaching (plus common sense) begs the question of how can a just and merciful God, eternally condemn those who are trying to know the truth, yet wasn't given the slightest opporunity to know and accept it?

Dialogue on the Catholic dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

2008-01-27T06:20:00.000-08:00

Hello,

I just want to share with you a commentary by a concerned reader, about my previous article entitled Comment on the Church's Indefectibility, which turned into a dialogue between the reader and me, the Author. The dialogue tackles the nature of the Church, in particular the Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (or Outside the Church there is no salvation), and the phrase used by Lumen Gentium to concretely identify the true Church of Christ, as the Catholic Church "subsistit in". I hope that the discussions might be of help in shedding some light to the teaching.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

A DIALOGUE ON THE CATHOLIC DOGMA: EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Concerned Reader: Can you explain this expression you first wrote in this thread: “…since outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation.” I'd really like to understand your position on this.

AUTHOR: I believe that what I’ve stated was clear enough that those outside the Mystical body of Christ, the Catholic Church ABSOLUTELY cannot be saved; since there is only one Savior, which is Jesus Christ, and only one Body the Church, which he purchased by his blood cf. Acts 20:28. I don’t want to make an exhaustive explanation on this since to do so would be pointless. Let us just say that I accept the teachings enacted both by the Council of Florence and Vatican II that those who, “through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church. Hence, a Muslim who never heard the true claims of Christ and Christianity, nor was he ever given the opportunity to know, and then decide or to choose for himself the truth of the Catholic faith, yet all the while he perseveres in good works and what faith he has, through the working of God’s grace and the natural law – to know and love God as much as he can. Then it is my belief that such a person is already considered an “informal” member of the Catholic Church, through the Holy Spirit’s ‘baptism of desire’, he is now incorporated into the mystical body of Christ in an invisible manner, regardless of his false religion Islam. Unless, he willfully and knowingly rejects the Christian faith (which he doesn’t yet know), or fully embrace his damnable religion, then he too will be considered by God as a Catholic (although “informally”, as not yet within the visible institution), and thus he too can be saved.

It is God alone who will judge, which of these peoples are “informal” members of the Church of Christ, and are therefore worthy of salvation. For that reason, the claim “Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation” stands. I hope I finally cleared my position on this issue.

Concerned Reader: I understand your points here. And I'm glad that you accept teachings of the Second Vatican Council and that you also subscribe to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.

AUTHOR: I’m happy to accept the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, since it makes me know and feel certain that I’m following Jesus Christ, and that I’m within His Holy Church.

Concerned Reader: But the thing that bothers me is this...The expression "Outside the Catholic Church, there is absolutely no salvation", has always been maintained by those who tend to confuse that “private revelations” are higher in degree and essence than “public revelation” like some believe that the third secret of Fatima is the apostasy of the Church.

AUTHOR: Firstly, this kind of argument is a type of ad hominem, since one does not disprove a claim e.g. “Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation”, by stating that simply because it is upheld by those “…who tend to confuse that private revelations are higher in degree and essence”. You must first demonstrate that the proposition is either inherently wrong, or logically untenable. Secondly, you failed to point out what it is that you oppose as erroneous, is it the misunderstanding of the claim “Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation”, or is it because the proposition is associated with those whom you disagree with i.e. those who think that the third secret of Fatima is the apostasy of the Church? Thirdly, the argument also manifests an emotive fallacy by disproving a claim because of one’s emotions (i.e. the thing that bothers me is this…”) without giving any logical explanation as to why the claim “bothers” you. Whether or not a renegade from the Church espouses such a belief, the point is that the veracity or falsity of the claim does NOT necessarily depend on the group’s upholding the belief. That is why even though the demons believe in a Triune God; we cannot ipso facto condemn the Catholic Church from believing the same thing.

Concerned Reader: And even some Sedevacantists use "Outside the Catholic Church, there is absolutely no salvation" to accuse Popes (Popes who reign after the Second Vatican Council) as heretics. Most of your terms came from websites of those who defy the Pope.

AUTHOR: Another typical “fear by association”, it doesn't mean they're wrong in using the same statement. Again, whether it is the sedevacantists, the Eastern schismatics, or even the Iglesia Ni Manalo who teaches this, we cannot just discard a claim as false, simply because the heretics believed it e.g. the existence of God. Again, you have to prove first that the above proposition is inherently and logically erroneous. Also, just because I got the terms theotokos, panagia, ikonostasis, theosis, and kyrios from an Eastern “Orthodox” schismatic website, (which thoroughly explained the said beliefs by the way) doesn’t automatically denote that these tenets and practices no longer have a valid basis, even though these schismatics defied the Pope (Popes who reigned after the Eight Constantinopolitan Council) close to a thousand years already.

Concerned Reader: It’s just that, if we want to maintain that we are faithful to the Magisterium then by all means, we must be careful with our words so that people won’t misunderstand and confuse us with those who are not faithful to the Holy Father and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. If I were you, just follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church's format of expression if you want to put forth your views.

AUTHOR: The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the most misunderstood council of the Catholic Church. Hence, it is up to orthodox traditional Catholics (in union with the present Magisterium) to clarify the matter as the Church traditionally and officially understands the said Council. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does NOT assure us that one would NOT fall into misunderstanding and heresy, should one read it (heck the Bible can’t even make that claim). It is because of the fallen nature of people who misunderstand, and no matter how much clarification, amendments, revision, correction, so on and so forth, fallen man is always bound to misinterpret, misconstrue, misapprehend, etc. This is why the Church continually (but NOT necessarily “perfectly” or exhaustively) explains the truth of the Christian faith. She has to contend the vastness of divinely revealed truths, and man’s inclination to misunderstand them. The Church IS infallible, yes, but she doesn’t claim that her definitions of dogma are absolute and infinitely comprehensive, since she too has her own limitations. Being faithful to the Church’s Magisterium doesn’t mean that one has to use the very words that she used scrupulously, to explain Divine Revelation. What one has to accept is how the Church understood the words or the propositions of dogma, which she has defined. Having said that, doesn’t it bother you that the Council of Ephesus defined the dogma that Mary as Theotokos ‘Mother of God’ and seemingly condemned the term Christotokos ‘Mother of Christ’ of Nestorios? Yet ironically, one finds the said term in the 1962 Daily Roman Missal, in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Latin equivalent = Mater Christi (ora pro nobis). It is clear then that it is the heresy attached to terms that the Church condemns, and NOT the terms themselves, (hence Roman Catholics at the Council of Brest, did not even bother the Greek Catholics in the latter’s refusal of the term ‘purgatory’). My claim (or my understanding of defined dogma) in no way contradicts the perpetual teachings of the Catholic Church. It may be misleading, or it may even carry a certain theological baggage, yes, but nevertheless, the proposition “Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation” can be (and has been) understood, and defended in accordance with Catholic dogma. It can even be considered as an added precision to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nvlla salvs, in a certain point of view – that no non-Catholics can be saved (unless they join the Church, either formally or informally).

Concerned Reader: What is proper is this expression: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

AUTHOR: It really depends up to what extent the word ‘proper’ will be proper for the expression “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Since the Catholic Church can make official precisions and clarifications in the future regarding the doctrine. However, let us ask, if it would still be proper if one equate the word ‘Church’ as embracing the entire human race, no matter what creed one holds? At any rate, I’m really not “absolutely” opposing you, and I respect your view. However, it is also my belief that the statement “Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation” as a more precise (though in no way the complete) understanding of ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’.

Concerned Reader: there is a reason why the Church has adopted the expression in Lumen Gentium: The Church of Christ "subsists in" (and not "IS") the Catholic Church. Precisely because "SUBSISTS IN" is fitting as it sheds light on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation).

AUTHOR: This is the popular exegesis of the phrase “subsists in”. However, further study on the issue destroys the more popular analysis resulting on another contrary interpretation – that the reason Vatican II introduced the phrase “subsists in” IS precisely to clarify and concretize the linking verb ‘is’. Since the word is in common language, has a wide range of uses and offers a lot of meaning. To give a few examples of the vastness of the use of the word is (Latin est): God is the rock, the Lord is a lamp upon my feet, Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, God is love, this is my Body, and this is my Blood. As you can see, the word ‘is’ touches the literal, equivocal, and analogical forms of speech. Unlike the phrase “subsists in” (Latin subsistit in) in the Thomistic school of thought of Philosophy, the word ‘subsist’ is strict, definite and it concretizes a concept, or an abstract, mental dependent entity (e.g. the Church) as having a real existent independent concrete being (i.e. this Catholic Church), or in other words the concept of the true Church is literally equated to a concrete entity viz. the Catholic Church. Therefore, when we say the ‘Word of God is Christ’ which is vague, can be rendered in a more exact manner as the ‘Word of God subsists in (viz. is the SAME; is NEITHER DIFFERENT NOR DISTINCT from; is ACTUALLY is) Jesus Christ’. The same goes for the concept ‘true Church’. It’s as if, Vatican II solved the equation to determine the value of X (true Church) = 7 (i.e. the Catholic Church). Hence, X=7; likewise the true Church=the Catholic Church. I think the reason why the Church adopted the phrase “subsists in” instead of the word is, is to precisely answer ‘Who is the true Church?’ in a more concrete and specific manner.

Concerned Reader: It leaves room for Mercy....

AUTHOR: I agree, so does the definition “Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation” in its proper understanding.

Concerned Reader: Fr. Feeney began preaching the axiom of Pope Boniface VIII "Outside the Church, no salvation". For him, formal membership (that is one NEEDS to be baptized) of the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation. The Holy See rejected his restrictive view by distinguishing between those who really belong to the Catholic Church and those who belong by desire.

The desire would be explicit in those who were catechumens and implicit in those people of goodwill who would join the Church if they knew it to be the one, true Church of Christ.

AUTHOR: So far no problem here.

Concerned Reader: Now, for me, “Outside the Catholic Church, there is absolutely no salvation” is irreconcilable with those who belong by desire. Because they, who are NOT formally members of the Catholic Church, believe that the “Church” they belong to, are what they knew to be the True Church of Christ. They, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church can be SAVE.

AUTHOR: Though they aren’t formal members they are STILL made members (though informal) by their desire to be with whatever is the truth. Now, should they be presented the truth of the Catholic Church, (OR the opportunity to know the true religion) AND yet have rejected it willfully and with full knowledge, then their ‘desire’ will not save them. It is NOT because of their false religion that they’ll be saved, rather because of there being members of the Church in an “invisible” manner.

Concern Reader: Hence, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation” leaves mercy for those who are not formally members of the Catholic Church and who are baptized by desire =)

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC)

AUTHOR: Again, no problem here, since this is what I believe as well.

Concerned Reader: It was clear enough from the very start that the Catechism of the Catholic Church stated: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

AUTHOR: Yes I agree with this, but the problem is with your exegesis, as to what is that you mean by the word ‘Church’ in the dogma of Outside the Church...And, Lumen Gentium, in particular have PRIMARILY assured us that the Church equals the Catholic Church. And, outside of which there is no salvation.

Concerned Reader: Now, you said: The Catechism ASSURES us that “it would make it more accessible” to the faithful, but it does NOT assure us that those who would read it would be immune from error and wrong comprehension. If you ADD – in this case you added “Catholic” and “Absolutely” – other than what the Catechism of the Catholic Church stated (ipso facto), are you NOT acknowledging it? How can you be “assured that you wouldn’t be immune from error and wrong comprehension” if you yourself added other than what it maintains?

AUTHOR: I can’t be. What I’m certain is what my understanding tells me (which you have to prove whether it is wrong) as what the Catholic Church IS teaching. Now I’ve demonstrated that Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Lumen Gentium identify the Church as the Catholic Church, and that those who willfully and knowingly reject it cannot be saved. It is God’s job then to determine who these people are.

Concerned Reader: Even the Fathers of the Church have often taught that statement "outside the Church there is no salvation". The Latin Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus which means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church, which is His Body.

AUTHOR: No argument there since the word ‘Body’ was associated by the Fathers, especially Cyprian and Augustine, to the Catholic Church. And Lumen Gentium explicates this idea, as ratified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is only my belief that the statement Outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation, as an unofficial precision and complementary to the dogma. I wondered why you even opposed this in the first place.

Ok, I (the Author)...do apologize if I’ve said anything that is hurtful or arrogant…Rest assured I give the Holy (Roman) Catholic Church the final say...I suggest that let’s just respect our individual understanding and opinions of the dogmas we all accept as traditional Catholics, and pray for one another that the Tridentine Mass may spread.

AD ORIENTEM: The Essence of Prayer

2008-01-15T20:33:00.000-08:00

AD ORIENTEM:
The Essence of Prayer
-By Armand Lamorte

The true prayer of the Christian is when he turns his focus away from himself, and instead faces God for prayer. Last Sunday January 13, 2008 of the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord, in the Ordinary form of the Roman rite, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, celebrated Holy Mass facing the east – a gesture wherein the celebrant of the Mass faces the risen Christ. Traditional Catholics in union with the Holy See, all over the world, lauded the Pope’s move to face Our Lord and offer the prayers of the people of God. The Holy Father’s choice to celebrate Mass ad orientem, following the ratification of the legitimacy of the extraordinary form of the Mass – viz. the Tridentine Mass, in his Summorum Pontificum, has showed Christian peoples of every nation, the nature and importance of prayer. It was a silent yet unprecedented importance on how Catholics should worship God, of pleasing Him, and putting back the focus of worship to where it rightfully belongs – to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Modern man and his world
In this day and age that recognizes itself to be 'modern', of which the highlight of everything is the so-called “existential involvement” of man, the purpose of man, and his meaning in this world. History has dubbed this era as the anthropocentric age, wherein the focal point has always been man’s awareness of himself, and the world’s awareness and recognition of his meaning. It is the world that centers itself on man, and his accommodation. This is the Modern spirit, the glorification of man – and not of God. Man is the center, and master even of his religion. Modern theology cannot but agree. It grew tired of the ancient concept of God as the center and guide of man’s destiny, its measure, its qualification. It grew tired of God, of rectifying man’s sorry status in complying with the standards of a holy deity, instead man wanted to be his own standard, and that the world and its rectification should be measured-up to his whims and conjectures accordingly. He no longer feels the need of appeasing God. Rather, modern man finally found himself tired of facing God. It thought that it was his time, and that all things should face him instead – even God. Yes, it maybe true that modern man recognizes the existence of a Divine Being and the important natural inclination or “behest” God gave him. It is also true that he may recognizes the need for worship. A need, which is so engrained within one’s nature, he has but no other choice than to accept the fact, and deal with the need to worship, in his own way – the Modern way. Man misplaces these realities, of his relationship and need of the Divine, on the condition that it is to his own relevance. Modern man molds God out of his own image and likeness – an anthropomorphic idol, which would suit his “end” to glorify himself.

A convert from traditional Catholicism to atheism, August Comte, a modern philosopher, once suggested a religion of humanity should take the place of God. He even goes on adapting Catholic forms of worship, priests, and sacraments to glorify and make man the object of worship. To this it can be said that what Comte suggested may not apply to modern Catholics, who still believes in the existence of God, yet it has been clear from the time of the Protestant Reformation, to the Second Vatican Council, up to this day, modern man has “transformed” even the Catholic religion, to be predominantly, a religion of humanity, and not so much of God. It was no longer the Catholic Church in the modern world; they’d rather call it “modern Catholicism”. For this, the modern-infected Church has seemingly conceded to the prevailing “need” or awareness of the age, in which she herself found herself deep into. Her focus too shifted to the relevance of man, and her highlights are no longer of God’s, instead that of man’s relation to the Creator. The significance of their religion now depends on the understanding of personal considerations, consequently on the individual’s accommodation about the relevance of his respective religion, prayer, and one’s liturgical life.

The essence of prayer
We are then faced with questions, in which modernism and society poses us. What is the essence of prayer? Whether the nature and the importance of prayer are located on the side of man? Or is it on the side of God? Traditional Catholicism answers that it is both. Namely that both God and man ARE central to the question, and on the nature of prayer. Nonetheless, Catholic Tradition teaches that prayer and the primacy of its importance is to be found in God, and then second only to men. To this, modern man insists that the highlight of prayer must be, and should always be on himself, and of God’s relation with him. The Catholic Church has perpetually taught that it is God who made the initiative to first call man; He formed mankind out of His own image and likeness, and made humanity dependent to His will.

Prayer therefore, is man’s response to the call of God, to the initiative of the Divine. Contrary to the modern mind, it was never a glorification on man’s part, but in reality a form of “humiliation” on his side. The Catholic Catechism says: “when we pray, do we speak from the height of our pride and will, or "out of the depths" of a humble and contrite heart? He who humbles himself will be exalted; humility is the foundation of prayer, only when we humbly acknowledge that "we do not know how to pray as we ought," are we ready to receive freely the gift of prayer” – CCC par. 2559.

It should not be, first and foremost reliant on man’s relevance towards prayer, as if the entire validity of one’s prayer depends whether or not it is most significant to him, or is pertinent to his purpose and needs in life. On the contrary, true prayer first and foremost, dependent as to whether it IS acceptable to God, and is rightfully pleasing to Him; otherwise prayer ceases to be one, it becomes futile. Pope St. Pius X condemns the modern idea "…Religion is a form of life, [and] the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man" -Pascendi Dominici Gregis. When Man becomes a beggar before Almighty God, when he is humiliated, does he's prayer turns out to be most significant. It is when Divine justice is appeased. This shows that the focus of prayer should be, primarily, the exaltation of God, and the propitiation of his glory. It is not so much on the whims and needs of man. Again it maybe true that because of this reality, the whole of humanity has a huge and noble task to perform, but that does not make the human race the object of prayer, neither are they the highlight of religion and liturgy.

Facing the East: the postmodern solution
The Holy Father’s celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, in honor of the Baptism of Our Lord, was a very remarkable event of shifting the focus of the highest form of Christian prayer, from facing the people to facing God. It is a simple, yet great gesture indeed, to break the ‘modernity’ of worship and prayer, and embracing the fact that it is God who should be at the center and the object of attention in the liturgical life of the people. It is not how man understands his prayer (no matter how seemingly important this is), rather that it is God who understands and accepts the prayer made by a humble man.

The pedestal of the vernacular should no longer be upheld, rather the Latin tongue. This change towards Latin, in the Roman rite, is an exemplary way of telling modern man of the primacy of God in lieu with his prayer life. Modern man has already forgotten what the Catechism reminds that according to Holy Scripture, it is the heart that prays. If our heart is far from God, the words of prayer are in vain – cf. par 2562 Catholic Catechism. God understands Latin, and finds it acceptable in the liturgy, made acceptable by our holy Apostles, saints, martyrs, evangelists in following His glorious will, even unto their deaths. In His omniscience, He deigns the priority of this language as the official language of His Church. Hence, the postmodern Catholic says that if God finds it acceptable, then it is man’s turn to make it understandable to him, and adapt it as his own.

The Divine is the standard and measure of man’s way of life, and culture. He must pray facing the East. He must face the true God, and turn his back away from his idol he has worshipped all these years – himself.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

WHO IS JESUS CHRIST: Proving the Divinity of Christ

2008-01-10T19:29:00.000-08:00

WHO IS JESUS CHRIST
Proving the Divinity of Christ
-By Kyle Valencia

(Taken from my comments with pseudonym, on the
Christian Life Program: Talk 2 of Singles for Christ)

We have heard this topic discussed several times by our astute speakers in the Christian Life Program (CLP) of Singles for Christ. Our elders have probably heard the talk a hundred times, while new comers (me included,) have scanned it once or twice. I believe that Talk 2 IS the most central, and essential of all the topics presented in the CLP, since it touches the most fundamental and genetic question regarding our Faith – “Why accept Jesus Christ?”

This short article would suppose and use one of the methods outlined in Talk 2 of the CLP. Let me remind that this is NOT a personal-subjective “emotional” preference, rather an objective evaluation to prove, using the CLP methodology, “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” that Jesus Christ is God. I believe that using the methodology that was proposed in Talk 2 of our CLP is adequate, to briefly show proofs affirming the deity of Christ.

I. THE PROBLEMA: Lord
As Catholics we have come to believe that this Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and thus the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament. The Church has taught us the teachings of the Apostles that Jesus is God, the Word of God, the Son of God and the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. He is from the beginning with God and was God, and He became one with the flesh, and we therefore, acknowledge Him as our Savior and Redeemer. It is because of this belief (i.e. the divinity of Christ) that Catholics (and even some heretics) maintain their allegiance to the Christian Faith.

Divine Revelation tells us the Godhead of Christ. The New Testament is replete of Jesus’ claims that He is indeed Divine (c.f. John 14:9, John 8:58). But how should we perceive such truth on the bar and inquiry of Reason? Although, Revelation point towards such a truth, how can we prove, on the basis of human reason, the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

II. THE DILEMMA: Lord or Liar?
We first consider the argument used by Christian apologist in dealing the question of Divinity:

1. Jesus was either God or an evil man.
2. But Jesus was not an evil man.
3. Therefore Jesus is God.

Few would challenge the second (minor) premise. There are people who reject the Christian claim (i.e. the divinity of Christ) but maintain that Jesus was one of the best moral teachers of history. They concede that He is a social reformer urging the people of His time to change its irrational religiosity and the existing polarization of “saints” and sinners. I remember my agnostic Professor in philosophy, saying that Jesus was a model of human perfection, and an ethical person by moral standards. Even Nietzsche, a stout opponent of Christianity, affirms the idealism of Jesus to be superior to that of the so-called “Christians”. He even went on declaring that Jesus as the only Christian who ever existed. Nevertheless, if one upholds the exceptional morality of Jesus, one is obliged to follow such a premise to its logical conclusion (i.e. Jesus is God).

We know from reason and experience that honesty constitutes a good person. Since honesty is a virtue, a person would be considered good if he is truthful in words and in deeds, and that a liar is considered evil because of his vice in distorting the truth for his own selfish reason. Jesus showed all deeds that would qualify him as a good person and never acted contrary to it. But Jesus also told His listeners that He is God (c.f. John 8:58), and implored them to believe Him not only of what he says but also of his works. But if Jesus was good, he is not a liar. And if he is not a liar, he is therefore telling the truth. Either you denounce Him as an evil person (a liar) or affirm His truthfulness, thus accepting His teachings consistently (He is Lord)

In book of C.S. Lewis The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe , Professor Kirke refutes the skepticism of Peter and Susan. The Professor asked Peter, whether Lucy (who claims that there is another world in the wardrobe) is a constant liar. Peter, though refusing to believe his sister, maintains that Lucy was most truthful in all of his knowledge of her, and neither was she insane since her action proves to the contrary. Therefore, the Professor said that assuming Lucy is telling the truth would be the most logical imperative. In the case of Christ, one cannot maintain the morality of Jesus as exceptional, yet deny His claims to be divine. If Jesus is telling the truth, we ought to believe Him; but if He is not, then we reject Him and His claims altogether. One cannot have it both ways, since to affirm both would be “mortal sin” against reason.

Why Jesus can’t be a liar:

A). It does not fit Jesus’ identity – anyone who has ever read the bible would have to conclude that Jesus possesses traits that are diametrically opposed to that of a liar. He cared for the oppressed, healed the sick, showed compassion to people, selfless, corrected others and showed them the truth. No person at that time even the religious authorities, withstand to the challenge of Jesus to falsify His testimonies (cf. John 18:23).

B). It does not have sufficient motive – any person who’s inclination is to lie, understands that such an act is only a means for its selfish end. Either for riches, power, self-glorification, pleasure or to avoid a certain punishment, are just reasons why people lie. Jesus didn’t have any motive to lie. He never gave into such worldly ends or luxuries. He even gave His own life for such a “lie”. No liar is willing to die for a mere lie. Jesus could have even saved Himself by not remaining consistent, when asked by the High Priest whether He is the Messiah, the “Son-of-God” (cf. Mark 14:61-62)

C). It does not have probable accomplishment – any historian who studied the New Testament would have to conclude that such a lie is most unlikely to succeed, given the socio-religious circumstance at that time. For one thing, the Jews were strict monotheist. It is their pride as a nation that they were the only race and people of religion, amidst the ocean of polytheism, who believes and worships only One God. Another is that Judaism is the only remaining identity which they still have, and to abandon it is considered treason. The Jews would have never tolerated any claims to Divinity except that of YHWH (Yahweh). If Jesus was a liar, He would be the worst liar who has ever lived because He knew His listeners, the Jews no matter what excuse, would never succumbed to such beliefs. If Jesus was not telling the truth, then He knew it’s not worth the risk.

III. THE TRILEMMA: Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
Let us move further and refine the arguments set forth and consider the claims:

1. Jesus not being a liar was either God or a lunatic.
2. But Jesus was not a lunatic.
3. Therefore Jesus is still God.

The possibility of Jesus being a certified lunatic is not only remote but conceivably impossible due to the evidences presented by the bible and history (and even psychology). Let us then consider this. Although a lunatic is not an evil person by moral standards, nevertheless such sincerity doesn’t absolve the validity of one’s claim viz. that a person is indeed divine. The “I am God” complex is a kind of psychopathology, wherein psychologists observe that people suffering from such mental disease acquire traits like self-absorption, rigidity, egotism, predictability, dullness, incoherence, etc. Now, believers and unbelievers would objectively agree that the personality of Jesus was entirely the precise opposite from that of a lunatic. He was the exact reverse of a person suffering from lunacy. He is an altruist, selfless, a humble person yet truthful, reasonable and logical. A lunatic cannot logically challenge his opponents to disprove his claims. Jesus on the other hand, not only confronted His enemies, He even beats them at their own game.

The word “awesome” is quite suitable for a lunatic because of his “incredibleness” since such claims violates reason. Yet the word ‘awesome’ takes a whole new meaning when applied to Christ since His hearers are often left in a state of awe “…never has anyone spoken like this” (John 7:46) not even lunatics. His teachings are also ‘incredible’ not because it defies reason like the lunatics’, rather it transcends human understanding. An insane person lacks one thing – logic to substantiate and defend his claims, yet Jesus clearly proved his claims by logic that He is even greater than logic “…Before Abraham was I am” John 8:58. The assertion of a lunatic can be challenge and be refuted by any sane person; Jesus on the other hand had many times silenced His inquirers. (cf. Matthew 22:41-46)

Psychiatrist J. Fisher states:

If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene – if you were to combine them and refine them…and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its [humankind’s] restless and fruitless yearnings. Here…rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health and contentment. (J.T. Fisher and L.S. Hawle, A Few Buttons Missing)

No lunatic could be the source of such a perceptive and psychological insight that even unbelievers won’t hesitate to dismiss the argument proposed by some that Jesus being in a state of lunacy. It is perhaps why some detractors of Christianity (especially of Catholicism) that although rejecting most of the Christian tenets, they tolerate the reliability of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament due to its soundness and consistency.

Why Jesus can’t be a lunatic:

A). It does not fit Jesus’ identity – The personality of Jesus is clearly an evidence in itself due to its extreme inadequacy of character which a lunatic often posses. Jesus exceedingly wields logic and common-sense that enables Him to manipulate His opponents and refute their error. Lunatics on the other hand are illogical and most of the time the ones to be manipulated.

B). It does not fit Jesus’ religious background – For one thing Jesus, like most His hearers and opponents at that time were all Jews. And the Jews being strict monotheists would have taken His claims and considered the possibility of lunacy. But there were no recorded incident in the New Testament that such an occurrence existed. Jesus being a Jew understood the clear distinction between Creator and creature. Jesus certainly knew what He was saying when He said that He and the Father ARE One.

C). It does not have enough psychological basis – The listeners of Jesus, both believers and unbelievers, can attest that His psychological profile were quite stable. The fact that they have conversed and argued with Him every day, especially the Pharisees, and in the temple about scripture is a clear proof of the stability and psychological superiority of Jesus. Since if they knew or even noticed that He was insane they would have clearly dismissed Him and have announced it. Rather knowing Jesus’ wit, they even tested Him by some “tricky-dilemma” in order to entrap Him. If Jesus was a lunatic it would already have been manifested on the manner of solving His way out. He surely would have fallen onto one of them. Instead, He sends His opponents out for the packing (Matthew 22:15-22; John 8:6-9)

IN CONCLUSION, the foregoing objections were proven insufficient to refute the claims of Christ and Christianity. One cannot simply “have his cake and eat it too”, since reason demands that either Jesus Christ is God, or he is not and therefore an evil person. To this our noble opponents disagree and maintain the exceptional life and morality of Christ and his staunch adherence to reason and previous authorities to defend his claims in the midst of his enemies trying to discredit him. As a Christian I would argue that if Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic, then we should abandon all hope of ever achieving social, political, moral, or even religious reform, since if an evil and deranged man who has no social, political, nor religious authority, and was practically uneducated, was able to launch upon mankind the greatest deceit and trickery ever to be unleashed on the world, who knows what damage another “intelligible” heckler might do.

Vt In Omnibvs Glorificetvr Devs,

Kyle Valencia
February 2006

ERRORS IN THE BIBLE: A Response to a Biblical Skeptic

2008-01-08T00:25:00.000-08:00

Hello,

Here are some questions given to me by a Biblical Skeptic, who happens to be a good friend and a fellow band mate. He told me that he got these from the internet and then later showed it to me, challenging the traditional Catholic doctrine of the full inerrancy of the Christian Scriptures. He then hastily concludes that questions and "irregularities" like these are clear "proofs" of the fallibility and unreliability of Sacred Scripture and Christian Tradition.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

ERRORS IN THE BIBLE
A Response to a Biblical Skeptic
-By Armand Lamorte

I. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
(b) Heli (Luke3:23)

Comment: The answer is both. Traditional Catholic (and other Christian) scholars agree that though Jacob is the outright father of Joseph, Heli then is the lawful father of Joseph. And how can this be? It is none other than the bond between Joseph to Mary – marriage. That being said, it can only mean that Heli in turn, is Mary’s biological father – and Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. In other words, Heli’s fatherhood of Joseph is connected to the latter’s marital bonds with the formers’ daughter.

Furthermore, the Hebrew (or the Aramaic) definition of ‘son’ and ‘father’ is more vague than its English counterpart. The proof of this is that elsewhere in the Bible, such an instance were the word father or son were also used in a much wider sense (e.g. see Genesis 23:3-5; and also 1 Samuel 24:11 and 16). This comes to show that when the evangelist Luke (though he was writing in Greek) used the word father in relation to Joseph, he was using it in respect of the Judean culture of relation; it was a consequence of the Hebrew-Aramaic rendering (and understanding) of the words father and son.

II. Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?
(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
(b) No, since Jesus is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (see Jeremiah 36:30)

Comment: The key to this is Jeremiah 36:30:
“Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, "He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night…”

We have to point out that the phrase ‘no one to sit’ is a vague phrase and can actually mean several things. First, the above phrase can mean that Jehoiakim would not have his immediate offspring to succeed him as king of Judah, but later on, some of his descendant may be able to do so. Secondly, the phrase “He shall have no one to sit on the throne” can be taken in a wider sense, meaning that not only can his offspring won’t be able to occupy at David’s throne, rather no one, or no man (not even his descendants) will be able to fill such a throne. And third, the above phrase “…He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David” can be understood as excluding Jesus, who alone inherits David’s throne. It is also logical since the bible says that Jesus alone will sit in David’s throne forever, since no other descendant of Jehoiakim would be fit to do so (since, no descendant of Jehoiakim is God-incarnate).

Finally (and perhaps the most important), we should point out that Jesus was NOT a descendant of Jehoiakim. He maybe of David’s descent but not through Jehoiakim whose ancestor was Solomon (c.f. Matthew 1); instead, he received David’s bloodline through Mary, whose father, Heli, was a descendant of Nathan and not Solomon (see Luke chapter 3). It is important to keep in mind that although Jesus was Mary’s biological son, Joseph descendant of Jehoiakim, was not his biological father. Jesus was just the legal son of Joseph (in accordance to Jewish law), but not his actual father; hence Joseph became his foster parent. In other words, Jesus received his Davidic lineage not from Solomon through Jehoiakim (whose descendants were probably cursed), rather, from a different route through Heli and eventually to Nathan son of David.

(Succinctly: Nathan and Solomon were David’s sons. St. Joseph was a descendant of Jehoiakim, who in turn was a descendant of Solomon, while Mary was a descendant of the Nathan whom Jesus received his Davidic ancestry, bypassing Jehoiakim).

III. How did Simon (Peter) find out that Jesus was the Christ?

(a) By a revelation from Heaven (Matthew 16:17)
(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Comment: The question above commits the fallacy of ‘false-dilemma’. It treats the two above response (viz. ‘a’ and ‘b’), as contradictory or non-complementary – an “either/or” scenario. The person promoting this question wrongly assumes that John contradicts Matthew in this case, without any justification whatsoever. In addition, it creates an illusion whereby deceiving us into thinking that the two possible response are to be treated as opposing, making it appear as if there is indeed an existing conflict. It’s like the question ‘where did the water from the glass come from, the pitcher or the faucet?’ Knowing that all water in the house comes from the faucet, including that of the pitcher. The same goes with this question. Simon Peter knew Jesus to be the Christ by a revelation from heaven, first via his brother Andrew and eventually the authority of John as a prophet; and lastly as revealed by the Father in heaven.

Let us further examine the verses on context:

1. Both ‘a’ and ‘b’ presents no conflict. Since Simon Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, initially through the corroboration of witnesses (e.g. his brother Andrew, and John the Baptist et al), and then by direct Revelation from God the Father. In other words, Peter found out who the Messiah is, by the "revelation of Heaven", mediated (i.e. because of his brother's hearing of the Revelation of John the Baptist), and then unmediated (e.g. the Father's direct revelation first, on Caesarea, then finally during the Transfiguration. Peter’s plain ‘belief’ was changed into supernatural faith when God directly revealed this truth “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God -Matthew 16:16.” In other words, his initial belief on Jesus being the Christ was later affirmed, in a divine way.

2. What Andrew told Simon Peter (i.e. Jesus being the Messiah) was also “…a revelation from heaven” since such a revelation came from John the Baptist, who in turn was a prophet of God himself. That being the case, John’s declaration (i.e. Behold, the Lamb of God) ought to be equated as “a revelation from heaven” by virtue of his prophetic office, just like Peter’s confession. Thus, God directly verified Andrew’s statement (consequently John the Baptist’s) to Peter, upon such a revelation viz. his earlier belief in Jesus, as the Christ.

IV. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

(a) By the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

Comment: There is absolutely no contradiction between the two accounts. If only we read the passages upon scrutiny, taking it in their respective context; it would be clear that the account of John and Matthew are stating the same truths or facts, in respect with the chronology of the events.

EVENTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

John 1:35-42 comes first in the chronology, followed by Matthew 4:18-20:

I. John 1:35-42
First: John the Baptist sees Jesus at the banks of the river Jordan.
Verse 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples,

Second: John’s revelation that Jesus is "Lamb of God".
Verse 36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

Third: John the Baptist tells his disciples (including Andrew) to come see the “Lamb”.
Verse 39 He said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.

Fourth: Andrew (a disciple of John) followed Jesus.
Verse 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

Fifth: Andrew got Simon/Peter
Verse 41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ).

Sixth: Andrew brings Simon to Jesus
Verse 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

II. Matthew 4:18-20
Seventh: Jesus, at this time is by sea of Galilee, sees Andrew
Verse 18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee , He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

Eight: Jesus says to Andrew and Simon, "Follow Me..."
Verse 19 And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

And Finally in Verse 20: Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.

Succinctly, in John 1:35ff, John the Baptist was with his disciples teaching them about the coming of the Messiah. In verse 36 upon seeing Jesus, he then tells them that Jesus is the "Lamb of God" or the long awaited Christ. After hearing this from John, his two disciples (one of which is Andrew future apostle) decided to follow Jesus probably to verify John’s claim (verse 37). Due to his stay with Jesus, in John 1:40-42, Andrew assured of what he heard from John and his personal acquaintance with Jesus, finally goes and gets Simon-Peter for him to see for himself that Jesus is indeed the Messiah (in verse 41).

Later in Matthew 4:18, as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he then again sees Simon-Peter and Andrew as they were fishing (in Matthew 4:19). He finally asks them to follow him and be his disciples. They did (Matthew 4:20).

Instavrare Omnia In Christo

ATHEISM'S HANDS ARE CLEAN: A Religionist's Critique of an Atheist's Criticism

2008-01-04T17:33:00.000-08:00

-As I was surfing in the net, I stumbled upon a site defending atheism. And one of its proponents was Mr. Mike Jones, who presented the most intriguing ("maintriga") arguments against those believing in God. I was quite disappointed with his arguments, since he failed to prove his claim (viz. that atheism's hands are clean), instead he danced around the issue by pointing out how religions are guilty of crimes against morality. He thought he can win by default that by showing the numerous crimes committed by some religionists, atheism would then be the necessary alternative. Below are my assessments (in dialogue form) to some of the points offered by Mr. Jones, in his case against the violent acts made by those adhering to an institutional religion, and although my response may be anything but an exhaustive treatment to question of atheism, it may still be helpful.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand Lamorte

ATHEISM'S HANDS ARE CLEAN

Mike Jones: It is impossible to ignore the countless massacres, murders, killings, and genocides committed in the name of religion. All of the ancient western religions (and some of the eastern) are guilty of this – Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, various paganisms, and most of all, Christianity.

Armand Lamorte: Mr. Jones, is already making an assumption that his position (atheistic "religion") is morally innocent than those religions he mentioned. He should prove first (which he couldn't) that nowhere in history was a single atheist guilty "of countless massacres, murders, killings, and genocides committed" in the name of irreligion. Second, he ought to show that atheism, pursued in its logical outcome, won't demand the atheist (e.g. Stalin) to be a godless killer and commit the things he is asserting that religious people did. Lastly, Mr. Jones should prove that the things he is denouncing were all done by its religious adherents in pursuing their respective line of thought, and not for any selfish reason.

Mike Jones: There is a key difference in these "godless killers". There were not killing in the name of atheism, it was not the cause. They were killing in the name of power. Atheism can't possibly be a cause for murder, it is ridiculous.

Armand Lamorte: Again, this atheist is already assuming that men like Mao Zedong killed people, not because of atheism. Mr. Jones, should first ask himself whether men like Stalin believed that they were acting consistently within the premise of atheism. He is presupposing that his principle (i.e. atheism) wasn't the cause of the evil acts done by atheists. Mr. Jones is duped with his double-standard mentality that he sees the wrong doings of religious people, and concludes that it's because of their religion; yet illogically absolves atheism from any evil acts done by its proponents. What he's really saying, is that whatever evil religionists have done is because of their religion; and whatever evil which an atheist did, has nothing to do with atheism.

Mike Jones: We don't go door to door and hand you tracts, nor do we insert our beliefs (or lack thereof) onto official government documents, such as currency and the Pledge.

Armand Lamorte: The problem with this argument is that by the fact that he's been posting his beliefs and reason for atheism in the Internet, he is also committing what he is claiming what religious fanatics are doing and much worse (since he is entering into people's homes and offices). Also, the numerous atheists in campuses bashing religionists and handing pamplets over and against a particular religion, destroys Mr. Jone's claim. I suggest that you let go of your hypocrisy and refrain from misleading others, as you are no better. Advocates of whatever religion (like any atheist) proselytizes, because of believing that one's position (e.g. religion) is to be found the consummation of the truth; and it would be quite wrong not to impart such an awareness to others. I certainly agree with Mr. Jones that to avoid proselytism would be an action that is inconsistent, since upholding your position (viz. atheism) to be true, then it would violate one's conscience to do otherwise. Furthermore, I find it odd that he never alluded to the "insertion" of the defunct Soviet government, in their insistence of atheism (Marxist Idealism) into the curriculum of public schools, nor that of other communist states.

Mike Jones: We certainly don't kill you for your silly beliefs.

Armand Lamorte: Stalin and Mao, his fellow comrades, disagree.

Mike Jones: In contrast, the idea of Christianity-caused killings, (i.e. murder of abortion doctors www.armyofgod.com), Islam-caused killings (i.e. 9-11 hijackings), Judaism caused killings (i.e. occupying Palestinian land and killing the natives), Hinduism-caused killings (i.e. forced suicides of windowed wives), even Paganism-caused killings (i.e. right-wing Asatru) is not only believable; it's painfully common throughout history. Many cannot possibly be explained by a grab for power, but rather a slavish mentality to dogma.

Armand Lamorte: It is precisely because of their "slavish" adherence to a religious dogma that such people never bothered to inquire, as to what the true understanding of a certain dogma is. Although I agree that some religions (especially Islam) teaches its members to use the "sword" to convert, its due to their "sincerity" (or fanaticism) as to what they know as true, which lead them to act as such. On the other hand, assuming that these religion-caused killings were done, due to "slavish mentality to dogma", such an argument refutes not only the religionist, but Mr. Jone's atheism as well. Since such "slavish mentality" of "orthodox" atheism led atheists e.g. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, into believing that "religion is the opium of the people", which justified their extermination of any proponents to the contrary. Like Mr. Jones, I can rightfully say that atheist-caused killings "…is not only believable; it's painfully common throughout history. Many cannot possibly be explained by a grab for power, but rather a slavish mentality to dogma."

Mike Jones: Of course, most people who belong to a religion do not murder. However, outside of the cultural context, one wonders how they can continue to belong to these institutions. Is it okay to be a reform Nazi? Is it alright to be part of the moderate wing of the Ku Klux Klan? Are you a centrist Al Qaeda member? No matter which parts of the institution you put on your plate, you are validating the crimes of the entire institution.

Armand Lamorte: This is a common “double edge sword” argument that atheists employ. The same is true with Mr. Jone's position; hence one cannot condemn Stalin or Ho chi Min to be an extremist or a conservative atheist, without condemning the entire atheistic "institution". Whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam or atheism, the bottom line is that any system of belief, claiming to be true, would inevitably demand its advocates to spread its tenets to others and refute those incompatible with it, violently if needed (e.g. Bolshevik Revolution). Your error here is that you've created an illusion into thinking that an institution (e.g. Protestants) comprises an entire "institution" (i.e. Christianity), however different (concrete) religions teaches differently as to how to handle unbelievers. The violence committed by those who adhere to belief (atheists included), boils down to three things: 1) Ignorance of dogma 2) Greed to power; and 3) False doctrine (e.g. atheism)

Mike Jones: Jonathan Swift once said, "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Perhaps we need to rethink that strategy, because we've seen what more religion can do, and the results are lethal.

Armand Lamorte: Neither does atheism. Since we've seen what NO religion can do, and the results are MORE lethal.

THERE IS NO GOD

2008-01-01T05:27:00.000-08:00

THERE IS NO GOD
THE FALLACY OF ATHEISTS

-By Armand Lamorte

…Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then why is there evil?

-Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
David Hume
Empiricist/Skeptic
1711-1776

Comment: Like many skeptics, the irony is, the above argument of David Hume, in my opinion, destroys the most basic tenets of his Academic philosophy or Skepticism, which he himself upholds. Skepticism is the doctrine that true knowledge is impossible. And since skeptics like Hume are inclined to deny knowledge pertaining to the certainty of Truth, more so to the existence of a Primal Truth (i.e. God); it is quite a paradox for the above skeptic to make such a claim.

Hume unknowingly dismantles his own position by dogmatically implying that the existence of God is quite incompatible with the reality of evil, as an assured “Truth”. The question is, if empirical-skeptics like Hume, were correct with regards the doctrine of Skepticism; then, how come they knew that an almighty, all-benevolent and an all-loving God cannot possibly exist, given the fact of evil? Unless we assumed Skepticism is false. How does the skeptic know for sure that God would be malevolent or impotent with the fact of evil, if at the same time he persists in clinging to the doctrine of Skepticism viz. that we cannot be certain of anything?

For someone who claims to deny the ability (or even the possibility) to reach the certitude of Truth, yet assumes that the existence of God and the reality of evil are totally irreconcilable, is simply claiming too much. Since that would be saying ‘We cannot absolutely know anything about God, but we absolutely know God cannot coexist with evil’, which is quite contradictory and prejudiced.

Of course the validity of the above argument still stands whether it has been made by a skeptic, an atheist, or a Muslim; nevertheless, one cannot perfectly deny and be totally assured that the possibility of God to exist is a negative. Since for someone to define and declare that God does not exist would have to posses, know and comprehend all data in the entire universe and all the facts in all possible time (which ironically, only a “god” can posses) for him to impeccably deny the existence of God.

Furthermore, given that the argument is valid, still the difficulty lies to the atheist/skeptic to prove how come God cannot coexist with evil. It is indeed tempting to question the atheist of how he came up with this idea, with his fallible and feeble mind, in declaring infallibly that the existence of a Divine Being is ultimately impossible under his own subjective presupposition that God cannot coexist with evil. It is my belief that the atheist is already "playing God", for him to define, contain and pretend to know the limit and parameters of an Infinite Being with his own finite understanding.

I have to conclude that the above argument formulated by David Hume, which is continuously upheld by his successors – to be self-defeating in its own standards, a false dilemma and lastly an argument facing an impossibility on the inquiry of Reason.

Proving the Existence of God

2007-12-29T08:06:00.000-08:00

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Argument from Design
-By Armand Lamorte

THE ARGUMENT:

Major premise: Where there is design, there must be a designer.
Minor premise: There is the existence of design throughout the universe.

Conclusion: Therefore; there must be a universal Designer (God).

-The complexity and efficiency of natural objects in the universe such as the human eye are evidence that they must have been designed by God. By looking at a watch, for example, we can tell that it was designed by a watchmaker, so we can tell by looking at the human eye that it was designed by some sort of Divine Watchmaker. God has therefore left a trademark on all the objects he has made.

Refutation: The argument set forth relies on a weak analogy: it takes for granted that there is a significant resemblance between natural objects and artificial objects we know to have been designed. The argument should first prove whether such a resemblance indeed exists.

Comment: The above critique claims that the argument from analogy ensued by the Design Argument commits a logical fallacy in treating two differing realities as one viz. a watch and the human eye. However, the Design Argument is quite correct when it uses such an analogy since it treats two different realities (the watch and the human eye), in one aspect present in both realities: namely the aspect of formal contingency viz. that one’s form e.g. metal becoming a watch, cannot come into being without some intelligent cause. And it can also be argued that the intricacies found in both natural and artificial beings supposes a cause which is likewise intricate, since reason tells us that an effect (e.g. the intricacy of the human brain or a wrist watch) cannot be greater than its cause (i.e. chance or luck).

Refutation: The theory of evolution weakens the argument since it explains adaptations of plants and animals could have occurred w/o the need of an all powerful God.

Comment: To claim that evolution weakens the argument from Design is to fail to understand whereby assuming evolution to be true, it only shows that God can design his creatures to arrive and operate under evolutionary methods. It is also quite conceivable for both God and evolution to complement one another, since God allows creatures to operate on their own capability (e.g. stomach digesting of food). For us to claim that evolution necessarily entails the non-existence of God is to assume the premise of atheism, as already mentioned in the foregoing, the very adaptations and processes that are found amongst creatures are of themselves, may be of God’s design.

Refutation: Evolution explains the same effects (plant and animal life) without any mention of God as their cause.

Comment: The statement “evolution explains the same effects without any mention of God as their cause…” does not validate the veracity (or the truthfulness) of evolution, since like any other theory that is seeking to explain the advent of creatures (like for example, the design argument) only proposes rationalizations and does not necessarily be in fact the truth. In other words, evolution (like the argument from Design) only tries to explain why it is so, but it may not be necessarily being the case.

Refutation: The argument fails to support monotheism (i.e. the belief in one God) for two reasons:

1). the argument can point to the existence of multiple super beings or gods.

Comment: By arguing that the Design argument is invalid since it fails to support monotheism – is a type of ad hominem, because such an attempt attacks the person’s theological orientation and not the argument itself (i.e. the Design argument). The Design argument may indeed show the existence of superior being or beings to be the cause of creatures and their design instead of only one; nonetheless, it at least proves the necessary existence of superior beings. Furthermore, the critic of the Design argument should focus on whether there exist a divine being (or beings) and not the position of whether the person espousing the argument supports monotheism or polytheism.

2). it can be argued that the complexity of the universe pertains to multiple personalities or gods operating, much like in human societies, instead of pointing only to one.

Comment: Although the argument from Design does not necessarily prove the existence of only one God, nevertheless the argument at least shows that there is an intelligent being(s) other than the materialist’s chance theory to be the cause of the design and existence of creatures.

Refutation: The argument doesn’t automatically support the view that the designer(s) was all-powerful and perfect since the universe is found to be faulty and with defects e.g. eye-cataracts, destruction, death, pain, evil, etc.

Comment: While the Design argument does not attempt in proving the omnipotence of the Divine being to be the cause of the universe, nonetheless the argument focuses in proving that there is something at least greater than creatures to be the cause of their existence and design. Further, the critique of the Design argument commits a non sequitur since it does not follow that by proving the defects in creatures would automatically demand that there is no Designer. The Designer maybe imperfect but there is still a designer far more perfect than creatures themselves. Furthermore, it is quite conceivable that an all-powerful and perfect Designer (God) can perfectly will imperfect designs for absolute perfection known only by Him.

Comment on the Church's Indefectibility

2007-12-27T20:24:00.000-08:00

Hello,

I just want to share my insight after all the discussions regarding the status of Church and the Mass. I hope you guys will permit me.

After reading Fr. Paul Kramer’s article in The Fatima Crusader of autumn 2000, I heartily agree that there is within the Catholic Church an apostasy occurring, of what Fr. Kramer described as the Roman Protestant Ecumenical Church. Our elders like Cardinal Kasper will surely be judged by Christ, for denying the salvation of those thousands of Anglicans returning to the true fold. It is a shame that the head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity wants the continued disunity of baptized people, and instead encouraged them to persist in schism and heresy. Nevertheless, I agree with the Cardinal’s speech that ecumenism (as understood in the light of Sacred Tradition) was not “an optional choice, but a sacred duty”, since outside the Catholic Church there is ABSOLUTELY no salvation.

On the other hand, I am cautioned here – that though there exist within the Catholic Church a “Protestant Religion” (or even worse, a syncretistic Protestant-Spiritist Apostate Pan-religion Religion) working in the bid of the Antichrist to prepare his coming. I’m reminded of the Church’s indefectibility. We should uphold that apostasy CANNOT annihilate nor break the Church in its official teachings and standing. The onslaught of apostasy is true, I agree, but its existence within the Catholic Church cannot be used as PROOF of the invalidity, or the irregularity of the Novus Ordo Mass. With this, I would like to answer the thesis implied that the approval of the (God forgive me) “bastard” Novus Ordo Mass, doesn’t affect the indefectibility of the Church, since it was NOT done under the auspices of infallibility. If that is true, then we can argue that even the Tridentine Mass was NOT even promulgated under the charism of infallibility, and therefore could have been (God forgive me again) a “bastard” mass as well. True, it was codified within the Council of Trent, BUT it has never “dogmatized” the Tridentine Mass, rather what it dogmatized was the Tridentine Mass (see Chapter IX of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent).

The doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility guarantees us that the Church of Jesus Christ won’t fail, and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. But to claim that the Church approved the advent of an invalid and sacrilegious mass (Tridentine, and Eastern Catholic masses notwithstanding), then it is tantamount to say that the gates of Hell has already prevailed, since the Catholic Church CAN after all approve a sacrilege and derision of Calvary. And that millions of Catholics worldwide, are now under the grip of Satan’s triumph over the Church Jesus founded.

As true traditional Catholics, we rightfully reject this and believed that though evil men in chasubles (and yes even if the Antichrist, should himself wear the tiara), may intentionally seek to concoct the worship of the abomination of desolation inside the Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit would be there to protect the Holy Mass and the Church from officially approving a sacrilegious worship. The point is whatever force was behind the creation of the Novus Ordo mass, the Holy Spirit would have protected the Magisterium of the Church approving the rite and canon of the Mass in poisoning the faithful and mocking the most Holy Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. Again, either this or become Muslim.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo,
Armand

Debate between an SSPX advocate and a supporter of the Summorum Pontificum

2007-11-30T00:55:00.000-08:00

SSPX Traditionalist: Anti-roman is another and Anti-Pope is another. ;)

Summorum Traditionalist: Agreed.

SSPX Traditionalist: The SSPX offer prayers of Holy Rosary for the enlightenment of the Pope. Nothing can be farther from the Truth.

Summorum Traditionalist: Agreed.

SSPX Traditionalist: When St. Paul rebuked St. Peter... he was not being anti-Pope – was he? Why did he rebuke St. Peter? Because his (Peter's) action does not affirm theTeaching of the Holy Ghost. And we, Catholics, have the duty to protect the Holy Tradition.

Summorum Traditionalist: Agreed. But like Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition can only be secured in the Church’s present Magisterium. Either this, or embrace sedevacantism.

SSPX Traditionalist: You call the SSPX INC (Iglesia ni Manalo) style. We’ll what about your comments to SSPX without proper facts.

Summorum Traditionalist: Are you accusing me of being a liar? Are you saying that what I experienced in the Our Lady of Victories was a lie? It seems to me that you’re the one “commenting” without the proper facts.

SSPX Traditionalist: It’s about extremism. Either you’re right or Left. Either you’re cold or hot. Read the Bible.

Summorum Traditionalist: Exactly, it’s either you’re within the Catholic Church (accepting Vatican II, and the present Magisterium), or you become full blown schismatic. So please tell that to the SSPX to stop fence-sitting.

SSPX Traditionalist: But there is what we call temperance or tolerance for the moment. But then we are always challenge by God to lead men to their path of eternal salvation --- one cannot then be lukewarm on that.

Summorum Traditionalist: Speaking of salvation, it would be better if the schismatic Bishops Williamson, and others, to return to the Catholic Church, since they know well that outside of her is “…nvlla salvs”, they’re bringing a lot of souls with them.

SSPX Traditionalist: The others may have what we call "full communion" but at what price? To accept the Novus Ordo beside Tridentine Mass.

Summorum Traditionalist: It maybe the price, but the goods are not cheap i.e. salvation. Whether we like it or not, the Novus Ordo is here to stay and we traditionalists loyal to the Magisterium will grab it from the Protestants and the liberals, and transform it. The Church is indefectible, and it cannot approve a Mass that is considered sinful. The burden of proof is on the SSPX to prove that virtually all of Christ’s Church is going down to hell, because His Church approved a Mass that is poison to the soul.

SSPX Traditionalist: There are many Saints that have been persecuted like St. Athanasius because of their firmness to fight for the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Summorum Traditionalist: And we Catholics upholding Tradition as proclaimed in Svmmorvm Pontificvm, are at one with the saints fighting and reforming within the Church.

SSPX Traditionalist: It has never been the stand of SSPX to be sedevacantists. Therefore, learn to search for proper facts.

Summorum Traditionalist: I doubt that you would recognize the facts even if it bites you on the face. I never said that the SSPX are sedevacantists, no one argues that! What I’m saying is that the SSPX OUGHT to be sedevacantists, since you took it upon yourselves, to condemn the pope for being a "heretic" and a “modernist”, and by declaring the “Conciliar Church” of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a different religion than that of the Catholic Church. When the SSPX has NO veil of authority within the Catholic Church, so I invite the SSPX to be consistent and become sedevacantists, or return to the guidance of the Church.

SSPX Traditionalist: Are you then a liar? Or am I asking for proper facts?

Summorum Traditionalist: And what evidence or level of verification would suit you? Give to us then the proper facts that the SSPX never bashes anyone sympathetic to the Novus Ordo, visiting their Church. I’ve told you about my experience as vouched by the members of this e-group (i.e. Ecclesia Dei Philippines) who were ones sympathetic to the SSPX and who received the same kind of treatment. I guess that the burden of proof rests on you to prove to us here that it is of the contrary. If not it would be better if you abide by the rules of this group or leave, lest you be “excommunicated” yourself.

SSPX Traditionalist: The SSPX accepts the Eternal Magisterium of the Church... one that confirms Holy Traditions as handed down by the Apostles. Also, being traditionalists does not constitute a schismatic as clearly elucidated by Bp. Castrillon Hoyos. ;)

Summorum Traditionalist: This is exactly the kind of argumentation, which Protestants ironically resort to, about a supposedly “Eternal Magisterium”. However, the argument quickly falls, since one still need a valid Church CURRENTLY present, to embody the will of the so-called “Eternal Magisterium”; otherwise such a Magisterium (no matter how eternal) is quite useless. Agreed that being a traditionalist does not result to schism (since orthodox traditionalism is Catholicism 2 Thess 2:15), rather grave disobedience to the Law and declaration of the pope that one is no longer Catholic, constitutes schism. In which, the SSPX bishops themselves incurred.

SSPX Traditionalist: They have never left the Church so there is no point of returning when you did not left in the first place. Get the facts right. It has never been in the position of SSPX to create another Church or separate from the Holy See of Rome. ;)

Summorum Traditionalist: Again, we would like to thank you for giving us the pious views of the SSPX about the Church. We also thank you for sharing to us the personal opinions of the Cardinal, nevertheless, we Catholics abide on the official decision of the pope in the Church, in which His Holiness John Paul II clearly said that the Bishops of the SSPX are no longer within the Catholic Church, whether we liked it or not.

SSPX Traditionalist: You cannot have salvation without Faith. Faith is what we ask from the Church when we were baptized. Why? To be saved. Therefore, loose your faith means loosing your salvation. It simply means that you neither clearly understand the weight of the Holy Tridentine Mass as you place it equal to that of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo has been there since the time of Luther. And,it has persisted. Ours is the duty to continue on the Faith and what have been handed down to us by the Apostles of the Church. Please read the decree of St. Pope Pius the V.The Church did not approve it as a matter of binding. Read the declaration.... "I wish"...

Summorum Traditionalist: Agreed that it is our duty to continue the faith of the apostles, but part of that faith is TO REMAIN obedient to the Church and to the Magisterium, whatever era it may be! Surely we can give our dismay, complaints, and grievances to the elders of the Church, since Canon Law requires us to. But when the Church has spoken, then one ought to abide (or else “…nvlla salvs”). The Church of Christ declared that the Tridentine Mass (with its many prayers, decoration, symbolism, rubrics, etc) IS EQUAL to the Novus Ordo Mass. The Mass IS the Mass, because Jesus Christ is there present. No matter how many prayers, rubrics, Latin, songs, or clowns, and nude priests danced around the altar, Jesus Christ becomes present when the words of consecration have been spoken. No whims of men can change it, (unless of course you wanted to become a Donatist).

SSPX Traditionalist: It is not the Catechism that taught us the Mass. But the Mass pours down the Grace that teaches us theMystery of God ... thus the Catechism. Therefore the Holy Tridentine Mass as codified has the utmost expression of Truths of the Church. Yet you would like to have it equal to that of the Novus Ordo. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Summorum Traditionalist: Not us, but the Church that Christ established says so – that it is equal to the Tridentine because the same Jesus is present (whether Ambrosian Mass, Tridentine Mass, Syriac Mass, Armenian Mass, Byzantine Mass, High Mass, Low Mass, Novus Ordo rock Mass, Clown Mass) what matters is the word of Christ confecting the Eucharist, which determines “the Mass”.

SSPX Traditionalist: ...Reforming? does having the Tridentine latin mass apart of that? I thought whether we like it or not Novus Ordo will stay. Why have different mass when Novus Ordo is already there fulfilling your sunday obligation. You seem to be prancing from your stance of whether to Novus Ordo or not.

Summorum Traditionalist: You have to argue with the Successor of Peter for that. If he says that there are two forms of the Mass in our Roman Rite, then it is so. Or, you established your own Burger King Church and “have it your way”. Take it, or leave it!

SSPX Traditionalist: Where do you really stand? From one second you're somewhere in the right then left then in-between.

Summorum Traditionalist: It’s not my position here to give you my stance, rather the present situation of the Bishops of the SSPX as being in the state of schism, and the schismatic attitude of your Society. I suggest you keep on to the topic and prove to us your authority to judge that the SSPX Bishops are NOT in schism, and the Novus Ordo is essentially evil.

SSPX Traditionalist: Ought to be sedavacantists? So you are more knowledgeable than Bp. Castrillon Hoyos? Eherm....

Summorum Traditionalist: No, don’t change the topic when you're cornered. The fact that Cardinal Castrillone acknowledges the “imperfect” communion of the Bishops of the SSPX, with the pope, doesn’t change the fact that John Paul II authoritative declaration and recognition of the state of schism remains. Or, are you the pope to reverse John Paul II’s declaration and interpretation of Canon Law? Are you smarter than the pope?

SSPX Traditionalist: What do you call the action of a Catholic that celebrates with other religion?

Summorum Traditionalist: What do you call the dissenting action of the Bishops against the will of the pope, other than schism? You can’t get away with such a line of argumentation. The actions done by John Paul II in Assisi maybe sinful (since only his conscience, and God would be the judge of that), but that doesn’t change that the fact that the acts of Archbishop Lefebvre’s (according to the Supreme Pontiff) was arguably sinful as well. Again, unless Pope Benedict XVI (or any other future Pontiff) reverses the statement of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, we uphold that the SSPX Bishops (not the SSPX as a whole) to be in schism.

SSPX Traditionalist: It is not the Papal rights that is in question here nor being rebuked but the actions that does not confirm the OFFICE OF BEING A POPE. Can you not even begin to see the difference?

Summorum Traditionalist: So you’re judging the pope then? Tradition clearly says that Christ alone judges the Pope, not you, me or Lefebvre, or Williamson. We can certainly question the pope’s actions or disagree with him to a certain level. But to condemn him of modernism, or heresy then God will be your judge for that.

SSPX Traditionalist: It is you who judge the SSPX unfairly that even the conciliar Church Leaders today begin to see the real position of the SSPX. It is people like you that make SSPX sedavacantist and not the SSPX.

Summorum Traditionalist: To tell you the truth, I’m empathetic with the SSPX and their fight for Tradition. I will even go further in recognizing that joining the SSPX or attending their masses does NOT necessarily incur the penalty of schism. It is only the Bishops who were formally declared by the pope to be in the state of schism. There maybe members who would be in formal adherence to the schism, nevertheless it is for the Magisterium to judge and determine such. Also, please, please stop saying that I ever claimed the SSPX to be sedevacantists, again no one argues that. What I’m saying is that with the present mentality of the society in condemning the Pope as heretic and modernist leads one to the consistency of being sedevacantist.

SSPX Traditionalist: Regarding bashing... see Truth always hurt no matter how you view it. Call it bashing or whatever... the Truth stands whether you like it ornot. Do you not know that Padre Pio himself scold anybody that wears skimpy clothing in his mass? Washe then bashing the persons who should change according to the times?

Summorum Traditionalist: This is exactly the kind of attitude when SSPX people are cornered, and have no good argument to throw. I agree. Actually one has to tell the SSPX bishops the fact that the truth of the present situation hurts, and that they are now outside the very Church, which they are so eager to defend. What can be more painful than that?

Can I ask you then, if the pope authorized the wearing of skimpy clothing at mass? On the contrary, Pope Benedict XVI issued Svmmorvm Pontificvm affirming both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass; then here comes the SSPX pretending to recognize the authority of the Pope, yet would oppose and scold him that his supreme legislative responsibility of interpretation is WRONG – that the Novus Ordo is a different rite and an “illicit” Mass? It is clear that it IS the SSPX that bashes NOT only Svmmorvm traditionalists, but surprisingly the Pope, whom the SSPX recognized as successor of Peter; yet when it comes to the Novus Ordo position of the Pope they would scold him and disagree. What double standard. The SSPX mentality is slowly becoming like that of the Eastern schismatics who would only pay lip service to the Pope’s authority by saying he is “first among equals”.

SSPX Traditionalist: You call them bashing you. Yet your insistence that they are sedavant or should be sedavacant and continued calling of SSPX being schismatics not a bashing act? My my... double standard indeed.

Summorum Traditionalist: Bashing? I was merely relaying my experience with them. How dare you judge! You were not even there. I went to the Our Lady of Victories in an optimistic and a Catholic attitude of buying a good Missal hoping that an SSPX priest would probably teach me how to use their missal. Or probably have a good discussion perhaps, about the deeds the Pope (e.g. his Svmmorvm Pontificvm) and the Novus Ordo priests’ growing awareness of the Tridentine Mass, as not abrogated. I was even praising them, in their preservation of the Mass. But all I got in return was a free bashing, slander, of traditional priests adhering to the Svmmorvm Pontificvm and later dubbing them as “mestizo”. Again, it is the SSPX that recognizes the authority of the Pope yet, when it comes to his legislative capability as supreme Pontiff i.e. the Novus Ordo, they contradict him and reprimand him. My my my such double standard indeed.

On the Splendor of Truth -A Positive Critique

2007-11-29T20:01:00.000-08:00

On the Splendor of Truth
A Positive Critique of Veritatis Splendor
-By Armand Lamorte

The words describing the radiance of truth that His Holiness John Paul II, former pope of the Catholic Church, can only tantamount to equivalence called – moral objectivism. The view that there is the correspondence between reality and of the objective qualification of our choices – a person’s determined volitional act, is either good or evil. This according to the encyclical is the assumption, or better yet, the revelation affirmed by Christian morality in its integration with the ethics of humanity. Our ability to choose between right and wrong has been regarded as a key element of man’s being that it establishes not only himself and others (i.e. his environment, and society), but including the eternal destination of oneself as well. It is an integral component of our ontological determination and purpose as human beings, as creatures, as existents that we are able to participate in the freedom of the Godhead, and eventually, with that of our ability to choose reciprocates it. This as mentioned by the encyclical, to be of fundamental concern that it is central to ones very own human existence. Its indispensable ‘determination’ is what perfects our humanity, and is a sign that we are indeed human, therefore created in the image of God. Hence, its essentiality (and existentiality) no matter how diminished by sin, is nonetheless cannot be fully destroyed by evil.

This part of Catholic theology reminds us that though magnificent this ability of man, yet it still finds itself within the midst of metaphysical limitation and the given corruption of sin. Indeed, the freewill of man has its limits and faces so great a task – namely to totally abjure the infection of sin within it, while directing itself towards the “things of heaven”. Human nature, as it first finds itself from conception, until the age of reason, as deprived of this assistance, which we call ‘grace’. For this, it presupposes the certainty of grace can only come from God who alone can freely endow us this benefit, in overcoming the impossible endeavor of eradicating sin within human nature, and its rightful rectification which it has lost due to the original sin of Adam. God’s grace is freely given, for it is its very definition. And only through God’s given grace can humanity redeem and exact itself, enabling man to choose the things of God. This is then the very mission of Christ! To become man and give man the redemption, and the assistance that he needs. For in Christ alone can one find this redemption, and to no one else. The encyclical appeals to this most ancient of Christian traditions that through Christ alone, in whom dwells the fullness of redemption and divinity, in which man can be fully free, and thus be saved. Christ then is the supreme model and the basis of how mankind should be. He is the ultimate expression of God, the Second Person of the Godhead and has become one of us, fully becoming man, having everything of us, except sin.

Once again, the objectivism of morality and the absoluteness of truth is an untenable thesis within Christian morals. This brings us to the inescapability of the concept – or rather the reality of the moral law. The very thing that demands us to act on what is right, and condemn what is wrong. In which according to St. Paul the law that is written on our hearts cf. Romans 2:15. These as opposed to relativism claiming that the sway of human freedom, the respect for one’s decisions, and to believe what one wants to believe are the primary importance of human rights, and experience. The encyclical says that such things won’t even be of ‘right’ lest one upholds the objectivity of the moral law. That relativism is based on a quicksand of principles and ideals that would inevitably doomed itself, without the foundation of truth and error, right and wrong, of good and evil is well-founded on the rules of logic and reality. And one cannot deny the existence of good and evil without even presupposing them. The encyclical also reminds us, and I quote “the relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law, which its intimate and living center in moral conscience is manifested and realized in human acts –Veritatis Splendor Chap 2, IV” Which proves to be, since only then can man act in the sense of what is right, and his capacity to do it, for one cannot act and do anything apart from the law of God, whose first law is for us to be free. The said statement also implies that this moral law is found in the center of one’s being (elsewhere, like par. 57 this is made explicit). It is a human being’s inescapable element.

The Church being the guardian of the truths of Christ, also guards the truths of the moral law. For the moral law is God’s law written in the hearts of every men and women. There can be no conflict. For the truths of the Christian faith and that of the moral law, are from one and the same God, who is the source of all truths (and who is Truth Himself). St. Thomas Aquinas address the intellect of man as geared to the truth, while his will towards the good. Yet, due to sin and man’s inherent limitation, mankind is already predisposed to error and evil. Hence, the Church of Christ which is the Catholic Church, as headed by the pope and bishops feeds, aids, and safeguards the well being of those who chose to be with Him. Again, the encyclical tells us that man are ordained towards a common end, which alone he cannot reach, and thus through the mercy and love of God he gives us the Church, who is the Bride of Christ. Only through her can anyone be guaranteed of being saved, since she alone is indefectible, she alone reflects Christ, and she alone upholds the law through the grace that comes from God. It is for this reason that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, composed of the pope, the bishops, the clergy and religious, and all those who are in communion with her, either in this world or in the next. The moral law tells us that there can only be one truth, one faith and baptism, one Lord, and only one true Church, and all the others false and evil.

In conclusion, the encyclical truly addressed itself to a modern world no longer, rather to the postmodern generation that aroused from the ashes of the rationalism, idealism, and moral empiricism of the modern era – giving birth to moral relativism and ethical nihilism. The said “-isms” truly spent the strength of human reason to apprehend the true meaning of existence, which is divinity; rather reason played a whore to the material “purpose” it pretends to be supplementing mankind’s true goal. After separating, and declaring independence from the revelation of God following the Age of “Enlightenment”, human reason wallowed and tires searching and giving man conflicting yet unsatisfactory answers, which the history of philosophy and humanity would later proved to be in vain. Thus, the postmodern battle cry is relativism that “righteousness and error is not objectively absolute, rather relative to the individual.” The heresy combated posthumously by John Paul II via his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI, at the altar of St. Peter – of what he would then call as the “dictatorship of relativism”, in our culture of death. That the consequence of such a belief is none other than death, since to choose abortion, murder, abuse, the holocaust, the superiority of one race over another, and then declare that these things are good from the point of view of an individual – certainly leads to death. The former pope, in his encyclical, merely pointed out the inevitability of the Christian faith (as hundreds of his predecessors did) and the alternative morality it presents to man for humankind’s true fulfillment. Only through faith (the true faith) can reason stand on its own and show man the beauty in store for him. That only in the Gospel i.e. the acceptance of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church – the true Church of Christ can one truly be saved, apart from which only death and despair. It is also for this reason why the Church perpetually teaches that outside the Catholic Church there can be absolutely no salvation. This is the splendor of truth that God invites us to Him, through Christ, via His Church – That we’re never left alone.

Understanding the Created World

2007-10-19T18:28:00.000-07:00

CREATION: AN IMAGE OF GOD
Understanding the Created World
-By Armand Lamorte

The Book of Genesis reminds us that we are stewards of God’s Creation, giving us the authority to conquer His wondrous works to govern and care for it. It would be a benefit for us to be aware that we are NOT the only significant beings existing, since we are continuously surrounded by the wonderful things God made. I believe that it is an invaluable endeavor for us to take a closer look on our environment, our surroundings and ourselves in fulfilling the task God gave us.

With much appreciation and awareness, it would be helpful to concentrate on the things we were entrusted with (the natural world), and the ‘things’ whom we are entrusted to (the supernatural, e.g. the angels). Nevertheless, it would be logical that we begin first, to whomever Creation proceeded from, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity – the Son.

The Son: the origin of Creation
The Second Person, having the perfect image of God, received from the Father the summit of perfection, as a consequence of being begotten from eternity. The Bible says that because of God’s infinite love, He willed that Creation should exist, by giving something of Himself (the act of existence). God can only create us through His Son since He is His perfect Image (i.e. it is His only basis or “pattern” in creating us, like using a “mirror” to draw oneself). Hence, it is only logical that the Son owns all of Creation and that Creation can only find its purpose and satisfaction through the Son, since all things are created for Him, and in Him alone (e.g. like your stomach finding satisfaction only on food). We must realize the honor that God has given us in uplifting lowly Creation (His imperfect image) from nothing, through the perfect image of His own Son (like treating your child’s toy doll as your own daughter).

Simplicity precedes Complexity
The Son, in possessing perfection, is absolutely simple (He is just one, not two). Nevertheless, the imperfection which is inherent in all of Creation, being brought from nothing, is manifest or expressed NOT by simplicity, but by complexity. Thus, the Son being simple is just one (meaning one entity, God the Son), but Creation being complex is diverse and divided (e.g. archangels, angels, men, women, animals, plants, minerals, molecules, atoms, etc.) As early as now, we ought to dispel such an impression that Creation is a ‘single entity’ lower than God, since it may mislead us into thinking that we are only a part of the entire ‘creation’ entity (similar to a finger, which is not an entity in itself, but just a part/portion of a larger entity, you). There is NO single subsisting “Creation”, it does not exists. Angels, man, animals etc. are independent entities that happened to have something in common; all were created by God from nothing. We are using the word creation for analogical and explanatory purposes only.

Complexity is the mark of nothingness in us, our dependence on God and on other creatures for us to exist (e.g. the salt in our blood, without which, we die). We rely on God to maintain the creatures supporting our very life. We depend on God for our existence, and He sustains us by sustaining those creatures sustaining us in return (e.g. God sustaining the very salt in our blood). In our complexity, order can be found; otherwise, should this order be bothered we lose the simplicity that our complexity is trying to achieve. Let’s take for example “Garfield” the Cat. As a cat, Garfield is a single entity composed of the complex system of ‘feline’ anatomy. Within Garfield’s body, a more complex system exists viz. the flow of nutrients, the nervous system, the digestive system, blood circulation and other cardiovascular activities etc. Now all of these complexities (the organs, systems and all the operations of Garfield’s body) equates to only one purpose – the survival of the entity (Garfield the cat). Should any of these “complexities” be irreconcilably disturbed or hindered (e.g. Garfield’s head being chopped off), the entire entity (the individual cat) collapses and reverts to ‘nothing’ (or to siopao, cat-flavor).

The whole of Creation bears the imperfect image of God, expressed in complexity and multiplicity for it to achieve simplicity. Hence, the atoms reacting in your cells, the nerve cells emitting information, the epidermis releasing oil, all exists for one simple reason, for you to live (that’s why business corporations has a lot of complex organizations and multiple employees, to achieve the sole (simple) purpose – to succeed.) Through the complexities within us, we strive to be simple. It is our only means, given the imperfection we have, to attain simplicity.

Degrees within Creation
Within Creation there can be found a certain closeness or resemblance of God in varying degrees, in which the more that a thing resembles God, the more perfect it is. Thus, a plant resembles God more perfect than a stone, since it has life. In the animal realm, human beings resemble God more perfect than the animals, since it has reason and free will, while in the spiritual sphere; the angels resemble God more perfect than humans, since they are pure spirits. Each creature displays the mark of God in differing lengths, in which we can therefore say that the more closer a thing is to the likeness of God, the more perfect that thing, is (hence, the closer you are to the light the more heat and light you reflect.)

In the material World, Creation can be divided in to two categories: the non-Living and the Living. Rocks, minerals and nutrients are samples of the former, while plants, animals (and man) are samples of the latter. It should be noted that what makes a thing ‘living’ (a cow), as opposed to a non-living thing (a beef steak), is the ability to move oneself at an impulse aside from its own (e.g. a cat chasing its prey, a plant photosynthesizing sunlight). Now, such ability is derived from a certain principle or source, in which we define as a soul. A soul is that ‘thing’ in all living things that differentiates a tree from a table, a real bear from a teddy bear, a migrating duck from a duck ham. In other words, it is the principle which gives life to a certain body.

Man is considered to be the highest of all corporeal (material) creatures. Having not only existence (like that of minerals), or life which allows him to move on his own (like the animals), but also a spiritual soul enabling him to wield reason and free will like God. Man has been given by God, an honor of great significance in the order of Creation. In showing His love even to lowly matter, God closed the gap, which separates the material world from the spiritual realm, by a unity that can only be found in man, who alone is composed of matter and spirit. Nevertheless, if man is the highest creature in the material order, he is certainly the lowest in the spiritual order.

In the gradation of Creation, we can say that on the top ladder are the angels, which are beings that are pure spirits; and therefore most closest to God in resemblance and perfection. The angels surpass humans in every aspect of perfection, because they lack the limitations that are applicable to matter only (e.g. sickness, destruction, death). They resemble God more perfectly than men since they possess a lesser form of complexity that is to be found in their being (they don’t need air, nor water to live). Like us they possess both intellect and free will, but unlike us they don’t need bodies to exist (angels don’t need a digestive system or nervous system to survive).

A “Defect” in Creation
Again, everything that is created resembles God like the Second Person, and having been created from nothing, all of Creation (unlike the Second Person) are NOT God. We should understand that Creation, because of not being God, is exposed to the possibility of evil. In their natural state, anything that is created from nothing, has incurred a defect within itself since it is not God (e.g. a worm is not evil for not being God, but a worm, since it is not God, can be eaten by birds, and to be eaten by birds is evil to a worm.)

Everything other than God need something that is not of itself, for it to be more perfect (viz. angels need sanctifying grace, animals need food and shelter, plants need nutrients; and humans need all of the above mentioned). It follows therefore that if a “perfecting” thing (like food) be deprived to the patient (e.g. Garfield the cat) evil would follow (Garfield dies). There are two evils that can be inflicted to a created being, physical evil (privation) and moral evil (sin). In material things, the only evil that can occur is privation, or physical evil, such as imbalance, hunger, injury, death etc. In the case of angels, being pure spirits (having no physical bodies) moral evil is its only possibility. While in the case of man, comprising a physical body and a spiritual soul, both physical and moral evil can take place in its being. Because in man, his body needs the nutrients and the sustenance of the material world, without which he would die; while his spiritual soul needs the love and grace of God, otherwise he would be damned.

God never intended anything evil
We should keep in mind that at the very beginning, God in His mercy and compassion have NEVER intended nor desired physical or moral evil for any of His creatures. Though we are imperfect, He did not leave us in our imperfection. Instead He has destined us to shed our imperfections by uniting in the perfection of His Son. Thus He out poured His grace to angels and men (and to the rest of the material world, through men). It was solely upon the supernatural act of God (e.g. sanctifying grace) that physical and moral evil was prevented to enter Creation; and so long as Creation remains in God’s grace, it would taste neither the horror of evil nor of pain.

Even though it is from our imperfection of God’s very image that we lack simplicity, we keep marveling at God’s wisdom and creative power. We saw that despite of the limitations of creatures (e.g. cats); we keep finding how magnificent God’s Creation is, most especially through the recent discoveries of science (vis-à-vis. astronomy, anthropology, chemistry etc.)

From the biggest (e.g. the milky way) to the tiniest (the quarts), we couldn’t help but wonder that if we find God’s imperfect image to be marvelous and irresistible in all of its complexity and beauty (e.g. the hotty women), how much more will we marvel at God’s Supreme Image, the Son! The Catholic Church says that the moment we see God’s true Image, we will be in a ‘state of awe’ for ALL ETERNITY and won’t even have the “nerve” to resist His Beauty (i.e. the Beatific Vision, which is exactly what heaven is). It’s quite logical after all we were made through Him, with Him and in Him (in unity with the Holy Spirit) in the first place. Despite our imperfections, we His creatures can still perceive the greatness and the beauty of God, in the limitations, defects, flaws and complexities of others, and the world around us. Indeed even the infidels are right in saying “Allahu’ Akbar” (God IS Great!)

Let this be a reminder that no matter how beautiful and marvelous creation is, it is but a taste of what is best – is still yet to come.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam,

THE SECOND PERSON OF GOD By Armand Lamorte

2007-10-14T06:52:00.000-07:00

THE SECOND PERSON OF GOD
Understanding the Nature of the Son
-By Armand Lamorte

Have you ever wonder, why it is the Second Person of God that became man? That it is the Son (the Word) who became the flesh, NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit, and definitely NOT all Three? The answer to such a simple question may prove to be more complicated than it seems, because it pertains to God’s inner life, which is utterly beyond all human understanding. However because of His love, God has revealed Himself to His family, the Church that all of creation resembles Him one way or another; and that only His Son (Our Lord Jesus) resembles Him in an absolutely perfect way.

The Nature of the Son
Let us start by analyzing the word “son” which means, someone who has received his Nature (e.g. human nature or “pagiging Tao”) from another person(s) (e.g. his parents).

Experience has taught us that the essence of parenthood is the transmission of nature (pagsalin ng katauhan) from a particular person (the parents) to another (children). Thus, we received our humanity (pagkatao) from our parents. We are human because our parents are human themselves. Children always resemble their parents. Should our parents been eagles, then it won’t be surprising to know that we are eagles ourselves. Hence the principle ‘Nature transmits itself according to its own mode.’

In the case of God, it would mean that God the Son received His Nature (Divine Nature or “pagiging Diyos”) from another person, namely, God the Father. God in the person of the Father has begotten the Son from His own glory, eternity and Divinity (“…hinango ang Anak mula sa magpakailanman”).The Son or the Second Person resembles God the Father in every aspect so perfectly, which cannot make the Son anything, but God. The Father is God; the Son should also be God. (“…Ang ama ay kalabaw; ang anak ay kalabaw …Hindi bangus.” –Eliseo F. Soriano, Ang Dating Daan). The Son has to be God otherwise He would be something else (an angel perhaps). If the Son is not God, it would then mean that God is not really God. It would imply that an all-powerful God “cannot” perfectly transmit His own nature, which is of course impossible.

The Son eternally begotten by the Father
We should always keep in mind that the Son possessed His Nature (pagka-Diyos) from His Father, and therefore makes Him equal to the Father in everyway, unlike human fatherhood, in which the father is more superior to his son due to his advance age and maturity. In God however, Father and Son are equal, because both possess the same, maturity, the same superiority, which is the one God. Since if the Son is not equal to the Father, it would either suggest that God is “not powerful enough”, or it is not the Godhood of the Father that the Son received. Hence, the Father being God has no beginning and no end, while the Son, like His Father, is also God; has no beginning and no end (viz. God = eternal, walang simula at walang katapusan; uncreated).

In human fatherhood, a man has to reach a certain age, perfection (that is puberty), maturity (sexual capability) and responsibility (courtship), for him to be capable to generate a son. It’s because of man’s inherent limitation that he must develop first, for him to have a son; while God is eternally perfect and does NOT need time to develop. We must NOT think that the Son is in anyway inferior to the Father because He merely received His Nature from Him, or that the Father existed first for sometime before the Son “came about”. Nor should we think that God as Father created the Son, well for one thing, God “creating” a Son won’t make Him a “Father” but only a creator (in any case, you won’t call a painting of yourself, your “son” would you?). A ‘God’ cannot be created. Again, everything that the Father has (i.e. kadakilaan, walang pasimula, kapangyarihan) is now the Son’s. God the Father can’t “boast” that He has more honor or power than the Son, since the Son has already had them. Our Catholic Faith specifically states that the Son is eternally begotten NOT made, and is equal with the Father.

Creation copied from the Son.
If the Son is the perfect resemblance of God from eternity (…mula sa magpakailanman); we creatures (angels included) are the imperfect resemblance of God from nothing (…mula sa kawalaan). We know this because, as already stated, the Son possesses everything that God has, Godhood; while we only possess something that God have, ‘mere existence’. The Second Person, or the Son, is the perfect resemblance of God, while we creatures are the imperfect resemblance. From that, we can know that when God created us and all Creation, He patterned His imperfect image (Creation), to His most perfect image, His own Son.

He owns us
If there is any relation between us and the Son, it is that the Son and Creation are both images of God. However, this does not mean that we are in anyway at par with the Son (kapantay sa kalagayan). Again, God in creating us based His Creation through His perfect image; thus, our relation to Him is infinitely different to that of God’s relation to the Second Person. The Son is begotten from eternity, while we are just created from nothing. God’s relation to the Second Person is Father, while God’s relation to us is just Creator (that’s why parents never equate their children with work…and work is never at par with our children). We, God’s creation, were simply created for the Son (for the same reason why parents work hard, for the good of their children, not vice-versa).

The Second Person rightfully owns all of us, since we owe our very existence to Him, without whom we are nothing. We therefore owe Him our obedience. It is through the Son that we exist. And only through Him can one find purpose, since it is for Him that we are created in the first place (likewise, a dress designed by a fashion designer, is made to be worn in the first place; otherwise it is useless). Only by being united with the Son of God (the perfect image) that we (the imperfect image) can be ‘perfected’ and find the fullness of existence, because we are for Him. Hence St. John tells us “…sa pamamagitan niya nilikha ang lahat ng bagay, at walang anumang nalikha nang hindi sa pamamagitan niya.” (John 1:3). It is only through the Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, can one have the courage (and even the right) to call God our Father.

Going back to our question, ‘why it is the Son that became man and NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit, or all Three of them’? I believe that it is quite understandable by now that the task of redeeming Creation should fall to whoever owns creation, and whose existence was patterned from, which is the Son – Our Lord Jesus.

FINALLY
Let this teaching remind us that every time we call God, one should always keep in mind our unworthiness, and how much it cost Our Lord Jesus, for us to utter the words “Our Father”. Although, I know that the foregoing article remains quite inadequate in giving an exhaustive explanation of the Nature of the Second Person, it may be enough for us to further enhance our understanding of Our Lord. I am also aware that more questions would come in to mind because of this. I humbly ask the readers’ apologies. This is the best that I could do. I always make an effort to desist in using (if possible) terms that are not intelligible for non-theological readers, and replace them with common words, attach examples and shorten most insights. Nevertheless, to completely avoid the use of technical words would be avoiding the habit of precision, exactness, and therefore truth.

It has always been my prayer that you guys may bear with me, the length and the amount of inconvenience, which many of my writings might have caused you. I am doing this NOT for my own praise but for the “greater glory of God” (ad maiorem Dei gloriam).

Lavdetvr Iesvs Christvs,